Evolution and Creationism

  • Thread starter Thread starter DictatorCzar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tafan2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Good try a yet another fallacy. If you cannot rationally defend macroevolution then I take this as just another “drive by” post in which the poster contributes little and demands a lot.

Macroevolution is not a “well established” hypothesis as your lack of answers to the standard science questions that qualify speculations from workable hypotheses demonstrates.

Have a good day. NB: not a good idea to text while driving.
 
The evidence on the details on how descent and evolution occurred throughout history is sparse – almost all the details are basically speculation. The best we have is molecular biology, which is a fragmentary record at best. And there are observed physical mechanisms like horizontal gene transfer that throw huge question marks into the simplistic Darwinian / Mendelian view of genetics and descent.

Asserting that “Natural selection is not intelligent” implies that we know more than we do about the history of life. We know some, but in the 4-billion-year history of life, what we don’t know is a far greater amount. There is no a priori or factual reason you can reject intelligent design or many other theories).

I am not convinced the data will be available to ever have much confidence. The data is lost to time. Evolutionary biology is not physics, where we can test hypotheses down to a 1 in 1,000,000 accuracy.

For example, how is it that human beings evolved a rationality that allowed us to design telescopes to peer into parts of the universe that are 13 billion years away? It is a giant leap from a rationality to that point from an evolved behavior that allowed us to coordinate mammoth hunts. I don’t see how simple incremental genetic evolution could ever explain such a leap (although I have heard evolutionists contort themselves trying to do so, and with no evidence). I am not saying it required Intelligent Design, but I am saying there’s no a priori and definitive reason you can reject it.
 
I have not been texting while driving. I am pleased to give you had the last word.
 
rossum said:
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.
Click to expand...
Newton was wrong. He did not have the benefit of quantum experience upon which to apply reason.

The debate among scientists on the relative importance of reason over experience continues in a tee-tottering fashion. Reason attempts to provide coherence to all experiences.

We will have to wait for more cogent reasoning (but still fallible) that explains how quantum experiences cohere with macro experiences. If reality is singular and independent of the thinking mind then the thinking mind must change when experiences do not cohere.

A paradigm shift occurs when the assumptions which always precede any rationale change. Paradigm shifts are rare and resisted because the collection of resistors know they will lose prestige and power as a result. The macroevolutionists seem to be in that boat presently.
 
Alyosha1984 said:
For example, how is it that human beings evolved a rationality that allowed us to design telescopes to peer into parts of the universe that are 13 billion years away?
Click to expand...
I will respond to this. Let me be clear. This did not evolve.
 
rossum said:
You say “dogma”. You are trying to criticise the science of evolution by likening it to a religiion, hence your “dogma”. That is a religious concept, not a scientific one.
Click to expand...
Macro evolution is not empirically proven and is a religion, a false one at that.

It is your dogma. You must adhere or your worldview collapses. You, by definition have to be closed minded.
 
Freddy said:
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.
Click to expand...
BGV Theorem says an expanding universe has a beginning.
 
buffalo said:
Macro evolution is not empirically proven
Click to expand...
You misunderstand science. No scientific theory is ever “empirically proven”. All theories are “the best we currently have” and are open to replacement. If you ask for proof then you are in the wrong area. Proof is for mathematics; science has evidence.

I have already provided you with evidence of macroevolution in both insects and in crayfish.
 
Yes, time had a cause. Our current universe is a four-dimensional manifold, with time as one of the dimensions. Our current universe started about 13.5 billion years ago. Hence, by the standard Kalaam argument, the universe had a beginning and so had a cause. Time is part of the basic structure of the universe so time also had a cause.

I did say that cosmology can get very strange; this is just one example.
 
rossum said:
You misunderstand science. No scientific theory is ever “empirically proven”. All theories are “the best we currently have” and are open to replacement. If you ask for proof then you are in the wrong area. Proof is for mathematics; science has evidence.

I have already provided you with evidence of macroevolution in both insects and in crayfish.
Click to expand...
This should be addressed to some other posters.

We agree then there is no empirical proof of macro-evolution.

Your two examples, (and the only two that you could come up with for over 10 years) do not rise to macro-evolution. These are adaptations. We have gone over this many times before.

Many posters here including you are truly not open to replacement. You are clinging to a failed dogma and you well know it.

The better explanation is design and is replacing the old paradigm as we speak. But stick it out…
 
rossum said:
Yes, time had a cause. Our current universe is a four-dimensional manifold, with time as one of the dimensions. Our current universe started about 13.5 billion years ago. Hence, by the standard Kalaam argument, the universe had a beginning and so had a cause. Time is part of the basic structure of the universe so time also had a cause.

I did say that cosmology can get very strange; this is just one example.
Click to expand...
The quantum integrating hypotheses range from 10 to 26 dimensions. We are equipped to directly perceive only 4.

Often, science imagines things that cannot yet be directly perceived in actual experience to bring rationality to a collection of observations. Think of nutrinos, black holes, dark matter, even the big bang. These hypotheses have merit in that science can now direct research to at least indirectly experience the imagined things by examining the reasonable effects that the existence of such things predict.

With macroevolution, not so much. If the premise for speciation is some unknown number of random mutations acted upon by natural selection, then the lab is hamstrung because designed experiments by definition violate that very premise
 
buffalo said:
Your two examples, (and the only two that you could come up with for over 10 years) do not rise to macro-evolution. These are adaptations.
Click to expand...
You are wrong. They are both examples of new species evolving. By definition a new species is macroevolution. Your attempt to redefine the word is Humpty-Dumpty argumentation and will get you precisely nowhere in any scientific argument.

If you want more evidence of macroevolution then have a look at 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.

Yes, macroevolution is a form of adaptation, but is is an adaptation which results in a new species rather than an adaptation within a species.
buffalo said:
The better explanation is design
Click to expand...
No it is not. Your designer is intelligent. Intelligence is a complex property. How did that complex property arise? ID needs a meta-designer to design the complex intelligence required for its intelligent designer.

If the intelligent designer does not need to be designed, then ID fails because a complex property, such as intelligence, can exist in the absence of design. No design required.
 
rossum said:
ou are wrong. They are both examples of new species evolving. By definition a new species is macroevolution.
Click to expand...
We can agree that your description of macro-evolution is actually devolution.

Been there done that.

God has always been.
 
Hume said:
It’s literally never happened. There’s never been a miracle that couldn’t be debunked. That’s the problem.
Click to expand...
That’s quite the sweeping claim. Prior to a declaration of sainthood, a future declared saint has to have demonstrably interceded on behalf of a believer, or in other words, needs to intercede with God so that a miracle occurs.
In general, before a saint is declared a saint, he or she needs to intercede so that miracles happen at least twice (it used to be 3 times). This must happen after the saint has died. Miracles done in life don’t really count.
The miracle needs to be sudden and impossible by known natural means. If it is medical in nature it goes to a board of Italian doctors.
It also needs be have been done after prayer for the intercession of said saint was done.

This would be hundreds upon hundreds of miracles. Is it possible some may have slipped through that were not miraculous? Sure, but I highly doubt you’ve personally investigated hundreds of rather unknown miracles from just these groups.
This leads me to think that you are, rather, rejecting the plausibility of miracles out of hand. Your name and profile pic make this all the more likely.
But these don’t even include the big, eye-catching stuff like various apparitions and Eucharistic miracles (which we can and do test for human blood and flesh due to modern science!), like

Loading…

en.m.wikipedia.org

(Wikipedia because it has a list of sources to further expand studies on).
Obviously not all claimed miracles are supported by equal evidence, but a big list of various purported miracles can be found here: http://miraclehunter.com
We have a skeptical openness to miracles, that they can happen but we should try to eliminate natural causes first. Some people (not saying you) seem to rather use any absurd explanation, even if it is very highly unlikely and nearly calumnious, over accepting the possibility of miraculous intervention.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top