Evolution and Creationism

[buffalo]

Because if he posts a link, it will include information that denies his basic premises.

@rossum knows better. This is not our first time around on fusion.

 

[buffalo]

And you have agreed that it’s a negative outcome in that we can’t reproduce with chimps. This is one of the main points you make. You bring it up constantly. So why is it a bad thing?

Because the arrow is pointing in the direction of degradation not gradation.

 

[FiveLinden]

FiveLinden:

That genetic material is shared primarily by descent.

We need a universal, necessary and certain premise. What you have provided is another particular, contingent and uncertain premise. One cannot deduce a logical conclusion from two particular premises.

You are talking like we are discussion philosophy at a pure, abstract level. I have no idea how to do that. I am talking about real, concrete things you can see and measure. There is genetic material. It is transferred by descent. In some cases there is also ‘horizontal transfer’, that is between already-existing individuals. But the material transferred came to them by descent. All living things share such material. Therefore, all living things are related by descent. You are related to the tree outside. You share a common ancestor, or ancestors. A goldfish is related to us all. These are all observations as clear as the observation that things tend to fall towards the centre of the earth if there are no obstacles or opposing forces. Gravity exists. We can observe it. Evolution exists. We can observe it. No amount of throwing philosophical terms around will change that.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And you have agreed that it’s a negative outcome in that we can’t reproduce with chimps. This is one of the main points you make. You bring it up constantly. So why is it a bad thing?

Because the arrow is pointing in the direction of degradation not gradation.

That’s what you think is happenIng. But it results in what you keep telling us is a negative outcome in that the ‘new’ species can’t reproduce with the ‘old’. But why is it a bad thing that we cannot now reproduce with chimps?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

This version of the universe did. You need to read up on what Penrose proposes. See the link upstream.

Yeah, yeah. The problem with the other version is the instability makes them unlikely.

You must know something that Penrose doesn’t. Tell us what that is.

 

[Kei]

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.

I do not see how this is true unless you are inconsistently using the term “universe”.
If by ‘universe’, you mean ‘all that exists’, then this model is either infinitely old or starts at some point (if the cycles didn’t forever continue), even if you wanna say it is like a “restart”.
If by ‘universe’, you mean “time-space continuum as it exists currently”, then in this model it too began.
The only way to say it avoids both things is to not be consistent in the use of the term, “universe”.

I don’t particularly think either conclusion is necessarily something to avoid, though there would be some philosophical issues with an infinitely existent universe, namely with infinite potential yadda yadda. I suppose then it’d be difficult to reconcile with ex nihilo creation, too, though maybe the particulars would be something to consider.

 

[DictatorCzar]

Question here, Why are you a Buddhist? Are you born a Buddhist? Or were you convinced?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

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.

I do not see how this is true unless you are inconsistently using the term “universe”.
If by ‘universe’, you mean ‘all that exists’, then this model is either infinitely old or starts at some point (if the cycles didn’t forever continue)…

The hypothesesis is that there never was a start. It cycles, so you avoid the problems associated with an infinitely old universe.

And there is always a problem inherrent in these type of discusions in that we are not built to be able to comprehend most of the concepts. It’s therefore entirely valid to say something along the lines of: ‘That makes no sense!’ Generally it doesn’t. Even when you read some of the explanations, unless you have a very good understanding of theoretical physics, then it remains something that can’t be grasped.

So how is it possible to have anything cycle without it having never started. Well, it beats me, but it is apparently entirely feasable. Just like the big bang. Nobody can envisage it and when most people try they think of a point that expands out like an explosion. Which is completely and utterly wrong because there was nothing to expand into. And when people talk about the early universe being the size of a pea or a basketball they are talking about what would be the size of the observable universe at that point. But we need simple mind pictures to help us grasp that which we are not built to conceive.

So there are two points that need to be made. Firstly, we need to be careful about using terms such as ‘It couldn’t have…it’s not possible that…it must have…etc’. And we should be using (whether explicitly or implicitly) terms such as 'It is proposed that…it’s possible that…the evidence suggests that…etc.

And secondly, and I’ve repeated this more times than I care to count, there is no-one on this forum as I am aware that is using any scientific arguments to deny the existence of God. So whether the universe popped into existence last Tuesday, it’s a one off or there are an i finite number or if it’s cyclical and didn’t have a begining, none of these proposals are denying God’s existence.

They may well contradict someone’s personal view as to how God created everything but that’s a problem with which that person has to come to terms.

 

[Metatron1]

Although the Spirit guides the church infallibly, it operates according to the temporal mode, which is necessarily imperfect. The end and the direction are certain but the Living Church has to assimilate new information as it becomes available: again, because of properties inherent in time.

As we obtain more information about the natural creation, fortunately we gain the insight to realize that modern scientific methodology can only confirm our faith and the teachings of the Church. During most of the Church’s existence, a literal creation narrative wasn’t even considered worth addressing and defending. That’s because the Doctors knew it had no bearing on the Faith, so they made very little of it. The important things are:

1. Creation is ex nihilo
2. ONLY God creates

These are the things it’s important for the Church that we believe. In comparison, the mode of procession of the creatures is a matter of indifference.

I interpret the Magisterial position on evolution as a tacit acceptance of it: saying it might be true is essentially to say it doesn’t run contrary to the Faith and the teachings of the Church. Evolution needed addressing because A. Evidence for it became increasingly decisive hence; B. Ecclesiastical authority was required to determine whether it was heterodox.

If the Church had said it was heterodox, I would have followed them no matter the evidence. But because the Church doesn’t deny it, I think it’s best to use what we’ve learned about God’s creation in order to see how perfectly (temporally speaking) it reflects his majesty. The way he has ordered creation is the best one, precisely because he himself ordered it.

I think it’s important not to draw potentially counterproductive lines in the sand at the possible expense of losing sight of truly important ones.

 

[Freddy]

I think it’s important not to draw potentially counterproductive lines in the sand at the possible expense of losing sight of truly important ones.

As long as it’s accepted that no scientific proposal put forward in any thread by anyone in this forum denies the existence of God. I have constantly asked certain members who frequent these type of threads to give any evidence at all of that happening. Over a very long period of time. And all we get is tumblin’ tumbleweed and crickets chirping.

However…what most scientific proposals will do is contradict certain people’s fundamental beliefs in the literal interpretation of certain biblical passages. And who am I to argue with someone who holds to those fundamental beliefs? Except when they deny basic scientific facts such as the age of the planet. If they want to discuss it I’m all for it.

So that’s what these type of threads are all about. They’re not about whether God exists or not. They serve only as a platform for people who claim that yet only want to argue for fundamentalism.

 

[rossum]

Question here, Why are you a Buddhist? Are you born a Buddhist? Or were you convinced?

I converted. Christian → atheist → Buddhist.

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

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

You are right there is a lot of work to do. Because it is a dead end. You can’t say a flawed scientific theory has a stronger hand than a “Law”. Abiogenesis doesn’t have the status of Law. Biogenesis is called “The Law of Biogenesis” for a reason.

The reasons abiogenesis is a dead end.
*There is no detailed theoretical path to go from complex organic molecules to a life form.

*There are no successful experiments supporting the formation of molecules more complex than amino acids.

*There is no mechanism for RNA building blocks to develop into the purine/pyrimidine bases of full RNA.

*There exists no experimentally possible theory on how the replicating/metabolizing molecules become life forms.

One of the most fundamental problems confronting adherents to the theory of abiogenesis is the chicken-and-egg paradox. DNA depends heavily on proteins for functioning, yet protein relies upon DNA for correct sequencing. Protein cannot arise apart from DNA, yet DNA requires proteins in order to function. Thus, the difficulty is: how did two independent systems, both of which are necessary for the sustaining of life arise simultaneously that rely on one another for survival and function? No one has been able to demonstrate how RNA could have formed on the early earth in the absence of living cells. And besides, the sheer instability of the RNA molecule would render it unsustainable in the long-term. Furthermore, there is no naturalistic mechanism from the RNA world to the current DNA-Protein world that fundamentally characterizes life as we know it.

Law of Biogenesis > :woozy_face:Flaws of abiogenesis

 

[rossum]

You are right there is a lot of work to do. Because it is a dead end.

A classic God of the gaps. Be very careful with putting your God into a gap. As science works to reduce the gap your God has to shrink to fit. Gods like Zeus and Thor used to fit into the gap called “What causes thunder?” Look what happened to them; they shrank.

There is no detailed theoretical path to go from complex organic molecules to a life form.

Yes there are – more than one path has been proposed. For example, start with a liposome and insert some self-replicating RNA.

There are no successful experiments supporting the formation of molecules more complex than amino acids.

Are purines and pyrimidines more complex than amino acids on your measure? We have both.

There is no mechanism for RNA building blocks to develop into the purine/pyrimidine bases of full RNA.

As I said above, we have both purines – Becker (2016) – and pyrimidines – Powner (2009). What is your problem here?

There exists no experimentally possible theory on how the replicating/metabolizing molecules become life forms.

Currently we have a number of different hypotheses: RNA world, protein first etc. Only when those different hypotheses are reduced to a smaller number will we have a theory.

One of the most fundamental problems confronting adherents to the theory of abiogenesis is the chicken-and-egg paradox. DNA depends heavily on proteins for functioning, yet protein relies upon DNA for correct sequencing. Protein cannot arise apart from DNA, yet DNA requires proteins in order to function.

Which is why the RNA world hypothesis is proposed. RNA can store information, like DNA, and it can also catalyse chemical reactions, like proteins. A lot of work has gone into studying ribozymes (RNA enzymes) for this reason. See Ekland (1995) for an example.

You are predicating the existence of your God on your forecast of what science will not be able to do in the future. That is not a wise move. Genesis says, “Let the waters bring forth…” and “Let the earth bring forth…” Abiogenesis is the study of that process of bringing forth.

 

[o_mlly]

You are talking like we are discussion philosophy at a pure, abstract level. I have no idea how to do that. I am talking about real, concrete things you can see and measure.

Well, this is the Philosophy Forum.

Certainly, you may believe what you have posted but if you wish to persuade others then you must provide an argument. The premises in a deductive argument are not abstract. They deal with real things and show how those things relate one to the other, first in the general categories and then in the particular.

Let us say that your general premise is: “If living beings share an essential property then those beings have a common ancestor.” Is that your general premise?

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

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.

So what? Whatever other assumptions he made is irrelevant to my point. I simply pointed out that he assumed that matter was made up of atoms and was proven correct eventually. Because you seem to think that an assumption is inclined to be false. “you make a lot of assumptions” “assumptions this” “assumptions that”.

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

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.

The rules that govern the quantum realm will never govern ours. Jed Brody says this “Quantum entanglement is a subtle connection undiminished by distance. Can we assert that the connection isn’t so subtle, but that the measurement of one particle physically alters the distant particle? I believe this claim can be neither proven nor disproven.” he also goes on to say "the fact that we simply have no evidence of parallel universes." How ridiculous is this?
Abiogenesis and mutliverses. I notice you place a lot of faith in dead end sciences that really can not even prove itself.

We are subsequently invited to contemplate a state of affairs in which all scientific chains of reasoning are ultimately grounded in absurdity.

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

Yes if that is the nature of particles. It is rational that H2o could change between solid, liquid, and gas and yet remain H2o. The rules that govern the quantum realm will never govern ours. You’ll never see the planet mars existing in two places at the same time or even a baseball.

 

[Kei]

The hypothesesis is that there never was a start. It cycles, so you avoid the problems associated with an infinitely old universe.

So it is infinitely old! It just avoids some of the evidential problems with such a hypothesis, though I (and presumably many others) wouldn’t say it avoids all the issues with such a thought.

And we should be using (whether explicitly or implicitly) terms such as 'It is proposed that…it’s possible that…the evidence suggests that…etc.

I agree in a general sense. One thing to always keep in mind in these types of meta-models is that they depend on the assumptions we are making in addition to whatever material evidence we are considering. For instance, big bang cosmology assumes:

1. The laws of physics are universal
2. The universe is homogenous
3. We do not observe the Universe from a privileged location such as its very center

If, say, we somehow find out that the laws of physics are not universal, or that the universe is not homogenous, or that we are at the very center of the Universe, then that will affect the model and majority consensus considerably, even without further evidence.
In science, therefore, it is important to be open to the possibility of further knowledge or evidence changing the models considerably.

But one thing about models seeming absurd but accepting them anyway: theoretical physicists may not have a grasp on all the issues involved, and obviously people can make mistakes regardless of their job. Hence, I think before accepting something that seems absurd, a variety of fields and other professionals within the field should look at it well and come to a consensus, and then at least try to explain it in a way that can make sense. Mere musings and hypotheses are different than asking the public to believe it, of course.

there is no-one on this forum as I am aware that is using any scientific arguments to deny the existence of God. So whether the universe popped into existence last Tuesday, it’s a one off or there are an i finite number or if it’s cyclical and didn’t have a begining, none of these proposals are denying God’s existence.

I agree! A boot in the sand, eternally present or not, is still the cause of the depression it is causing in the sand.

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

The generic problem with all cyclic models of the universe , pointed out by Richard C. Tolman in 1934, is that with each bounce the universe gets hotter, due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, as work gets irreversibly converted to heat. Another problem is that, since 1998, astronomical observations have indicated that the universe is going to expand forever.

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

You are predicating the existence of your God on your forecast of what science will not be able to do in the future.

I want to make something clear to you. My faith is based on the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. He claimed to be the Son of God, the Messiah, and the Son of Man. He worked miracles, healed the sick, raised a man from the dead and ultimately he himself rose from the dead. 500 people saw him in the 40 days after his Crucifixion. They saw him in a resurrected body. Not as a ghost or vision. The disciples were in a position to know if Jesus rose from the dead or not and a man would not die for what he knows to be a lie. the disciples died in horrific ways still professing the truth.

My faith in God doesn’t rest in what science cannot prove. It rests in the resurrection. Science can NOT disprove that Jesus is the Son of God , was crucified on the cross, rose from the dead, and lived the most miraculous life in History.

When I talk about what science can and cannot do that is coming from my own curiosity and love of science. I wish to know and understand the universe God made. The greatest scientists were men of God and men of science as well.

On top of that I enjoy a good debate. Although i am only a hobbyist amateur when it comes to philosophy and logic.