Evolution and Creationism

[EndTimes]

200,000,000 can be found within Revelations. And so what? It’s but a number…

That the Creator Created Creation is the Question…

 

[DictatorCzar]

Oh no, during the time of Moses, not during the Roman Empire.

 

[DictatorCzar]

I was saying that millions and billions might have never been known during the Exodus.

 

[EndTimes]

I was saying that millions and billions might have never been known during the Exodus.

I don’t know bout that…
Sumerians and Egyptians - although differing in theoretical vs practical,
were no dopes when it comes to maths…
That’s before Exodus.

)

 

[Freddy]

That’s just what he believes.

Then I guess we both think he’s wrong.

 

[Freddy]

Pattylt:

If God suddenly created a brand new species and didn’t tell anyone, you would reject it as new species don’t exist. Correct?

Lineage splitting already goes on.

Quite true. And unless I’m mistaken, a general definition of species which you accept is that the ‘new’ species cannot reproduce with the ‘old’ species. And unless I’m mistaken, you class this as a loss. Now I’m sure I saved a quote from you somewhere that related to lineage splitting with a loss and ‘macroevolution’.

Ah yes. Here it is. I knew it would come in handy:

‘Macroevolution, the lineage splitting with loss, of a new species, has been observed. It is an established fact; no assumption required’.

No assumption required, eh? An established fact you say. Well, I can’t argue with that…

 

[rossum]

Is God limited in how He can create?

God is limited in His inability to lie. Hence the world that God created does not lie. The evidence of the world that God created shows that the universe, and earth specifically, took a lot longer than a week to form.

 

[o_mlly]

New record for you, Fred. Over 540 words this time in your response that is, well, a non-response.

Those arguments?

No, Fred. Not the one’s in your playbook. Please put your Atheist’s Playbook down. Your attempts to deflect just won’t do. Maybe the number of philosophical arguments that Ripperger presents overwhelms you.

So, try to respond to just the first one for starters – The Principle of Sufficient Reason. Did you know that the articulation of the principle of sufficient reason is credited to Leibnitz, a 17th century German philosopher, mathematician, and political adviser, important both as a metaphysician and as a logician and distinguished also for his independent invention of the differential and integral calculus. Oh, and did I mention he was an atheist?

Real Principles and Evolution

In order to evaluate evolutionary theory in its various forms, we want to begin considering the first real principles. We will not be discussing all real principles but only those which apply most directly to the analysis of evolutionary theory, and of the hypothesis of human evolution in particular.

1) The principle of sufficient reason, ontological formula:

A) there is a sufficient reason or adequate necessary objective explanation for the being of whatever is and for all attributes of any being.

B) full formula: every being must have either in itself or in another being a sufficient reason for its possibility, actualities, origin, existence and the mode of existence, its essence (nature or constitution), its subjective potentialities, powers, habits, operations, changes, unity, intelligibility, goodness, beauty, end, relationships, and any other attributes or predicates that may belong to it. (Princ. 35)

Alternate: the existence of being is accountable either in itself or in another.

Without a doubt, this principle is the most violated among evolutionary theorists.

I know, this is the philosophical section of the forum.

That’s correct. All yours Fred. Show us what you have.

 

[o_mlly]

First principles?

“Impermanent are all compound things.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

“Sorrowful are all compound things.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

“All the elements of reality are soulless.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

– Dhammapada 20:5-7

The test of the intelligibility of any statement that overwhelms us with its air of profundity is its translatability into language that lacks the elevation and verve of the original statement but
can pass muster as a simple and clear statement in ordinary, everyday speech.

So, let’s simplify to just 1 question in the “Yes” or “No” category.

Do you reject the self-evident principle of non-contradiction?

 

[rossum]

Do you reject the self-evident principle of non-contradiction?

I reject your unnecessary addition of “self-evident”. It assumes at least one unstated premise, that of a two valued logic. For example, we might adopt a three-valued logic: yes, no, uncertain. You are including an unstated assumption, which is not always correct.

If we accept the premise of a strictly two-valued logic then yes, non-contradiction is correct.

 

[stoplooklisten]

He could have actually done it in a week had He wanted to. He could have done it last Thursday.

Assumptions about time and distance related to ancient ages depend upon a couple of assumptions built into the physics equations. The assumptions are: a constant speed of light and a constant passage of time. I’ve heard it said that gravity can bend light so I wonder about a constant speed of light but let’s assume that it’s true. What about a constant passage of time? Science fiction has certainly done its share of speculation about time travel? What if the passage of time happens at elastic rates and is changeable? What if time has passed at different rates across space and time and is relative to something else? Assumptions and presumptions are easy to make.

 

[stoplooklisten]

Based upon the revelation of the New Testament and the Gospel of John, we do know something about what happened before the creation of planet earth. We know it from the prayer of Jesus in John 17. We know that Jesus Christ, the Son, enjoyed glory in common with God the Father.

Now glorify me, Father, with you, with the glory that I had with you before the world began.

New American Bible. (2011). (Revised Edition, Jn 17:5). Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

 

[o_mlly]

If we accept the premise of a strictly two-valued logic then yes, non-contradiction is correct.

Is the proposition of macroevolution subject to two-valued logic?

Macrovevolution - the proposition that all life on earth evolved from a single simple common bacteria.

 

[rossum]

Macrovevolution - the proposition that all life on earth evolved from a single simple common bacteria.

That is unknown, specifically the word “bacteria” and “common” is ambiguous. A better definition would be:

Macrovevolution - the proposition that all life on earth evolved from a single very simple common ancestor.

That is a scientific proposition, and that is true as a scientific proposition.

As a philosophical proposition, we may all be living in the Matrix and be fooled by a seamless virtual reality constructed by some alien intelligence, or by Loki/Trickster. Science ignores that possibility. Philosophy…?

Your approach leaves out a number of possible, though unlikely, options. Those options render an absolute answer impossible. We have to live with a level of uncertainty.

 

[rossum]

The assumptions are: a constant speed of light and a constant passage of time.

The speed of light has been shown to be constant for the last 10 billion years, and probably so for 2 billion years before that, by measurements of the Fine Structure Constant on very distant objects.

Scientists do not like to assume when they can measure. It this case, measurement was possible.

I’ve heard it said that gravity can bend light so I wonder about a constant speed of light

Gravity can bend light, see Eddington’s Observations in 1919. However the speed is defined as in a vacuum away from any significant gravitational gradients.

 

[o_mlly]

That is a scientific proposition, and that is true as a scientific proposition.

As a philosophical proposition, we may all be living in the Matrix and be fooled by a seamless virtual reality constructed by some alien intelligence, or by Loki/Trickster. Science ignores that possibility. Philosophy…?

Macroevolution is simply a proposition. Considered within the realm of science, the proposition is evaluated on the precision and continuity of its evidence (effects) and the cogency of its supporting rationale as to causes. A rationale that is definitionally limited to natural causes.

Considered within the realm of philosophy, macroevolution is evaluated also on the precision and continuity of its evidence, and the cogency and validity of its supporting rationale.

Invalid rationales are never cogent.

 

[Freddy]

Show us what you have.

I can show you what the old duffer hasn’t got. He hasn’t got a grasp of evolution. Which you might think would be pretty important if he’s going to spend all his time trying to deny it happens.

Look, I’ve read the article and it he takes solid philosophical reasoning (thanks Leibnitz) but applies it incorrectly to the evolutionary process. Not that you should be using the one in regard to the other anyway. But he talks about a ‘higher order’ in evolution which was a way of thinking that was used decades ago when you had illustrations of a ladder of progress from ape to man for example. Utter nonsense. But if you’re a Christian who believes that we are here as the ultimate result of God’s work then how else are you going to view it? And then he effectively asks how you can get a higher order from a lower one:

'…the accidents cannot cause a change of a higher order in some other thing when the causing agent is of a lower order. ’

That statement is not applicable to the evolutionary process. Higer order and lower order are terms that are applicable to taxonomy. He is commiting a categorical error so all his conclusions will be wrong. And he seems to think that the psr allows for ‘microevolution’ and not ‘macroevolution’. Not realising that one is just a summation of the other. It’s like saying a foot doesn’t exist but an inch does.

So thanks, but no thanks. I’ve granted you this explanation because I needed to show you that his problem is that he is trying to attack a process which he doesn’t understand. So enuff with the guy’s innapropriately used philosophy.

And to head you off at the pass, his principle of proportionate causality suffers exactly the same problem as does his principle of resemblance. His principle of operation allows for ‘microevolution’ but doesn’t appreciate what countless generations of micro changes will amount to. The principle of finality assumes teleology, a concept that doesn’t exist in evolution and the principle of finiteness of received act simply denies any change whatsoever. And finally his principles of evidence and of economy are just him saying ‘God did it’.

Thanks for the opportunity to show how a lack of understanding of a scientific subject isn’t necessarily improved by using philosophical arguments to reach a preconceived position but is often compounded by it.

At least someone like Behe knows about evolution and understands a process he is determined to show is designed. At least he is qualified to make the attempt. All Ripperger does is exhibit his ignorance.

Anything else you want to discuss other than that article?

 

[buffalo]

No assumption required, eh? An established fact you say. Well, I can’t argue with that…

Always furnish the entire context with @rossum when you quote this.

 

[buffalo]

God is limited in His inability to lie. Hence the world that God created does not lie. The evidence of the world that God created shows that the universe, and earth specifically, took a lot longer than a week to form.

God cannot deceive but He can choose what and when to reveal. The issue here is man’s capacity to properly reason observations without seeing the entire picture. Science by its own definition has a limited say abut the universe and is provisional.

 

[Noose001]

The speed of light has been shown to be constant for the last 10 billion years, and probably so for 2 billion years before that, by measurements of the Fine Structure Constant on very distant objects.

An observation or a measurement, is just our consciousness bringing ‘things’ to perspective, consciousness and reality are inseparable. It is my submission that the universe (reality) only exists within our collective consciousness.

It is hard for the speed of light (299 792 458 m/s) to be independent from consciousness when the meter in the equation is just an agreement. Change the ‘meter’ and everything changes