Evolution is contradictory?

[rossum]

Yet it is not empirical, that is observable, repeatable and predictable.

The Lederberg experiment is observable, repeatable and predictable. The Luria-Delbrück experiment is observable, repeatable and predictable.

Your sources are misinforming you, badly. Why do you believe such unreliable sources?

rossum

 

[rossum]

1. Science as religion

I find it fascinating that religious people try to denigrate science by saying, “Science is a religion”. What they are saying in effect is: “Religion is inferior to science, and the bits of science I don’t like are inferior because they are a religion and not real science.”

Are you really trying to tell us that science is superior to religion, buffalo?

rossum

 

[rossum]

Most relevant to this dialogue, would be:

I am Buddhist. If you want to use quotes from scripture then I suggest that you quote from the Tripitaka. Bible quotes are only relevant to me if they either agree with the Tripitaka or they agree with observed reality. I do not accept the Bible, unsupported, as an authority. It is only authoritative where it is supported by Buddhist scripture and/or by reality.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

That is no correct. We could explain why water for example behaves differently under different circumstances.

I think we’ve done this dance before. I’ll take a pass, thanks.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

This is a moment of creation

The instant on creation, yep, that can also be called, scientifically, the Big Bang. There is a lot of agreement between science and religion in some areas.

Thankyou for clarifying there is a moment, an instant of creation. Everyone would surely agree there is.

Now, no one knows how long a day was, in the context of the creation stories.

And we are free not to read parts of the First 5 scrolls/ books of the bible in a fundamentalist or literalist view.

Pope Pius back in 1945 began teaching we should be looking Bible in historical-critical light.

You can say you are a fundamentalist, that’s ok. I can say I don’t take parts of Genesis literally and that’s ok too.

We are free to do so. The a MAGISTERIUM teaches us this.

But what’s important is in reading Biblical narrative, we identify the context, historical situation and genre, to inform us.

And certainly the first creation story, there are two, is one of the most gifted pieces of writing ever.

I get it, you are a literalist, a fundamentalist. I respect that. Please respect my equally justified and allowed reading of Sacred Scripture as my right, given me by successive Popes pre and post Vat 11

 

[Aloysium]

The instant on creation, yep, that can also be called, scientifically, the Big Bang.

That instant of creation called the big bang would be continuing.

If there was a singularity created at the beginning, and there isn’t a scientific consensus on this, after it would have been brought into being, that would not have signalled the end of creation. After an initial plasma was created, then were atoms using that primary material. Later vegetative organisms, new whole sysytems of being were brought into existence utilizing molecules as their substrate. Animals would come later and then human beings. Each step in creation could be a “day”, whereby God used what He had already created to create something new.

I get it, you are a literalist, a fundamentalist.

Actually, I would define myself as an Existentialist, with a capital E, signifying that God is at the Ground of everything that is. As Existence itself, He brings forth all forms of existence - their particular soul, what they are in themselves, as a unified organization of substrates that in turn exist along ontological/spiritual/psychological dimensions. So, I would see everything as being a collection of individual expressions of the kind of being, the soul which makes them what they are, having been created at an instant in time, with the first member of their kind.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

That instant of creation called the big bang would be continuing.

Continuing what?
On the science, there is a huge body of work p(name removed by moderator)ointing it. Look up geothermal mapping. Are you confusing the Big Bang with the emergence of flora and fauna. Don’t conflate the two.

On Genesis
Yes each is a day, a day of God, not of us.

He brings forth all forms of existence - their particular soul, what they are in themselves, as a unified organization of substrates that in turn exist along ontological/spiritual/psychological dimensions. So, I would see everything as being a collection of individual expressions of the kind of being, the soul which makes them what they are, having been created at an instant in time, with the first member of their kind.

We agree. In that God created everything. Where we differ is you interpret the reading of Genesis creation in a fundamentalist literal way. And you reject aspects of God’s work in your interpretation of your Biblical reading.

Are you describing one creature in your narrative there , or a collection of creatures

 

[Bradskii]

Matter in itself cannot evolve because it is not in its nature.

Abject nonsense. How on earth do you think all the matter that exists today came about? How about you type ‘evolution of elements’ into the search engine of your choice and do some study.

 

[rossum]

We agree. In that God created everything.

Erm… He created everything except Himself. Unfortunately the common version of that thought is incorrect and it brings out the nit-picker in me.

rossum

 

[Roseeurekacross]

In the Catholic sense. God would answer you

I AM

I would answer that God is not a created being, God is the author, the creator

 

[rossum]

I would answer that God is not a created being

Which is what I said: “except Himself”.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

Are you confusing the Big Bang with the emergence of flora and fauna. Don’t conflate the two.

I’ll respond to this distraction in order to elaborate on my position.

Let’s clarify our definitions. Although the “big bang” is a misnomer, the name has captured the general imagination. It can refer to the initial singularity or the inlfation period, but colloquially, it refers simply to the beginnings of the universe up to the point in time that it entered into that phase where the universe resembles what we find today.

Outside our classifications, whatever our definitions, something happened, a miracle. What happened is continuing. There is no physical demarcation in time-space at which some big bang stopped; what we observe is an ongoing and accelerating expansion of the universe. If we consider coming into being as creation, what began as one point in time continues. We differentiate between the two types of creation, the first meaning the birth of particular kinds of being and the second, their maintenance in existence. Atoms did not exist and then they did - when they first did, as they do now, they come into being as an Act by Existence itself.

In a different sense we can also say that the instant of creation continues in that its presence is found in the microwave background radiation and in the fact that when we look out, we look back in space, seeing what happened 13 billion years ago, 700 million years after the proposed initial singularity.

I’m not going to elaborate on my repeated speculations on the reality of a day as a unit of change, where one day today is the equivalent of billions of years in a simpler universe. In terms of the human experience outside our measurements, a day is what we do from sunrise to sunset, a unit of work done, things accomplished.

you interpret the reading of Genesis creation in a fundamentalist literal way.

Please stop this.

I think what I was trying to say was that creation took place not in one instant, distinct from others, but rather occurred in a step-wise fashion, one “day” at a time, where what was newly brought into being, to be maintained, utilized as components, that which had previously been created.

I dread to imagine which line you will take out of context to act as your foil.

 

[Aloysium]

type ‘evolution of elements’ into the search engine of your choice and do some study.

Doing as this poster suggests, something may come up as a summary of what we might be looking for, such as:

Elements and the ‘Big Bang’ theory. During the formation of the universe some 14 billion years ago in the so-called ‘Big Bang’, only the lightest elements were formed – hydrogen and helium along with trace amounts of lithium and beryllium. … Elements are formed deep within the cores of certain types of star. . . from a New Zealand science site.

One way to describe the creation of atoms from the pre-existing plasma is that they “evolved” as the universe cooled. A better way that tries to include the fact that these minute events exist as wholes in themselves, a unified system which can be particulate or integrated into a greater holistic system, such as we find in the cells that go one to form living beings in themselves. There is no evolution, it being merely an materialistic illusion that arises when we fail to appreciate the being of everything that comes together as the universe.

 

[o_mlly]

So in rejecting the Big Bang in some form you are rejecting the instant of creation.

The Big Bang theory does not explain the creation of matter but the mechanism that propelled existing matter throughout the universe. Cosmic Inflation theory, a theory about the first instant at the start of the Big Bang itself, still posits the existence of matter in the universe.

Where that matter that got “banged” came from is still beyond any science theory that I know of. Creation ex nihilo remains the only viable explanation.

Evolution never explained how matter came to be, or how inert matter became living matter, or how living matter became human. To evolve (to roll out of something), implies that that “something” from which something else rolls out already exists.

 

[rossum]

There is no evolution, it being merely an materialistic illusion that arises when we fail to appreciate the being of everything that comes together as the universe.

Here I cannot agree with you. In effect you are denying the reality of change. That is contrary to my scripture; Buddhism sees the world as changing with a veneer of apparent stasis. It is an error to mistake the apparent stasis for the underlying reality.

The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. 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

Those all too common “assumptions of ontological depth” are an error.

In science it is better to use “cosmology” or “stellar nucleosynthesis” to describe the origin of the elements. That avoids confusion with biological evolution, which includes natural selection. There is no equivalent of natural selection in the development of the elements after the Big Bang.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

you are denying the reality of change

What?

Buddhism sees the world as changing with a veneer of apparent stasis.

To say that the world is ever-changing, is to assert that it is unchanging in that respect.

The laws that we create to describe the material is based on an assumption that what we find is predictable and repeatable. To claim that everything is changing would seem to be anti-science.

Those all too common “assumptions of ontological depth” are an error.

I understand that this is your belief, but I can’t say I know what you are talking about.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I’ll respond to this distraction in order to elaborate on my position.

I respond to that dismissive with a

One should not attempt educated discussions with those lacking the education

 

[Roseeurekacross]

The Big Bang theory does not explain the creation of matter but the mechanism that propelled existing matter throughout the universe.

Read carefully, I said the instant of creation , and went further to correct another chatter who conflated that with the creation of cells and their form

 

[buffalo]

The Lederberg experiment is observable, repeatable and predictable. The Luria-Delbrück experiment is observable, repeatable and predictable.

Your sources are misinforming you, badly. Why do you believe such unreliable sources?

I have asked several times and it looks like this is all you have. 80 year old experiments that are so limited that you claim support evolution. I am amazed this is your foundation, so weak…

 

[o_mlly]

Read carefully, I said the instant of creation , and went further to correct another chatter who conflated that with the creation of cells and their form

Pardon me? It’s pretty hard to read malapropisms carefully without laughing.

Waitress: “Sir,would you like some neutrons on your salad?”