R
rossum
Guest
D’oh! My mistake. Thanks for the correction.
rossum
- Status
rossum
C
Chris_W
Guest
Where did the matter come from?
I didn’t say the alternatives are evolution or Christian creationism. I aksed you what alernatives there are to creation and evolution. Any creation account still falls under the heading of “creation” doesn’t it? Therefore these are not an alternative to creation or evolution.
Sounds like creation (my emphasis added to your text).
No. You have posed theories about how some form of creation may have occurred, or evolution, but you have not posed an alternative to the two.
Again, that is not an alternative. That is an answer to the question but it is not an alternative to creation or evolution. An alternative would be “another possibile way it occurred”. I don’t know is not a possible way the universe came about.
Ahh. A point of agreement again.
Agreed. But you and I both already said he will not convince an evolutionist based on scientific evidence. Therefore I recommend he take the discussion outside the limited realm of science. An atheist can still reason can’t he? An atheist can still look at a miracle and see it contradicts what is scientifically known, can’t he? (even if the answer is “huh, must be something we don’t understand yet”). An atheist can still consider philosophical reasoning too. Why limit oneself to science, when it is so limited?
Not sure I understand: You said science cannot prove any of its theories, we shouldn’t expect it to do so, but then you recommend we limit the discussion to science so we can be productive in dialogue? What did I miss here?
In answer to your questions, yes: Use the Buddhist scripture, include the arguments of the great philosophers, consider experiential evidences…and consider science as well. We humans are quite capable of debate on various subjects. Deductive reasoning can be applied to all.
Of course each topic would need to be discussed individually or in an orderly fashion so as to limit asides and tangents, but to limit the discussion to a topic that cannot answer the question with certainty seems a bit futile to me.
M
mlchance
Guest
That neither follows logically (since an infinite series of cause-and-effect is logically impossible) nor scientifically (since any closed system degenerates toward entropy and, after an infinite amount of time, the Bang-Crunch-Bang system would’ve done just that, meaning none of would exist right now).
– Mark L. Chance.
E
Eireann
Guest
You could ask your friend if he believes in evolution what does he think we’ll evolve into next ?
Also ask him has evolution stoped ? if he says it has, ask him when we stopped evolving ?
When did we come to the end of the great evolution production line ?
C
cheddarsox
Guest
These questions show some common misunderstandings of the theory of evolution.
Not everything evolves into something else. Some things stay pretty much the same for hundreds of millions of years. Crocs and turtles and ferns have been around in a very similar form since before the dinosaurs. Evolution is a tree, not a ladder.
Evolution is not a production line, it has no agenda. there is no one thing that everything is evolving into. It is a process of nature, complex and interconnected, not something that follows some type of human or predictable logic that we can make these sorts of speculation on.
As I often see people post here, “There are not 100 people who hate Catholicism, but there are millions who hate the false notions they have about Catholicism”
So it is with evolution, many people hate the demonized false understanding they have of it, but have little understanding of the theory itself.
cheddar
H
harinkj
Guest
If you are defining creationism as it is commonly defined, you are putting forth a non-Catholic position.
- Kathie :bowdown:
E
Eireann
Guest
Then give me a run down of what changes into something else and what doesn’t.
And why don’t the other things change ?
Why haven’t crocs, turtles and ferns changed ?
If it’s not a production line, how did we evolve from apes ?
I never once said I hated the theory of evolution.
Please explain and then I’ll try and understand, if you can’t explain, how can I understand ?
cheddar
H
harinkj
Guest
This is an old bogus argument: Since you can’t explain every detail that one questions you on, evolution must be wrong.
I don’t know about crocs and ferns, but turtles have changed to adapt to their environment. I imagine an expert on crocs and ferns could say the same about them.
Evolution due to adaptation to the environment and natural selection.
One has to study biology and the scientific method to really understand evolution. Books are better than someone trying to prove a point.
- Kathie :bowdown:
S
Sugar_Ray
Guest
For those who requested it the source for my quote from Nobel Prize winner and Harvard biologist George Wald (“I choose to believe that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution”) is:
A book called Faith Training by Dr Joseph White, his footnote reads: Frontiers of Modern Biology in Theories of Origin of Life (Houghton Mifflin p187)
Now some of you have said that the opinions of non scientists need to be disregaded, as if they are conducting their own experiments in their basements and not presenting facts uncovered by actual scientists (I’m wondering then if we should disregard the apologetics of everyone on this board who is not an ordained priest?)
Others recommend that a person really needs to be a biologist to understand evolution while some have said George Wald’s quote should be disregarded because he is a biologist and not a chemist. I’m beginning to think that if I found a chemist who disbelieves in evolution he would be disregarded because he is not a paleontologist, etc,…is there no one of any merit who disbelieves evolution?
Finally, we seem to be talking past one another to a degree with different meanings behind different terms. I am willing to wager that the gentleman who started this thread because his friend at work believes in evolution is debating someone who believes that monkey’s turned into men and that life started by chance.
I take it that many of you who believe in a natural origin of life do not believe in one or both of those theories but the reality is that that is what most people consider to be evolution. In most cases when we laypeople are debating other laypeople that is what we are up against.
I am closing out all…see you on other threads
A book called Faith Training by Dr Joseph White, his footnote reads: Frontiers of Modern Biology in Theories of Origin of Life (Houghton Mifflin p187)
Now some of you have said that the opinions of non scientists need to be disregaded, as if they are conducting their own experiments in their basements and not presenting facts uncovered by actual scientists (I’m wondering then if we should disregard the apologetics of everyone on this board who is not an ordained priest?)
Others recommend that a person really needs to be a biologist to understand evolution while some have said George Wald’s quote should be disregarded because he is a biologist and not a chemist. I’m beginning to think that if I found a chemist who disbelieves in evolution he would be disregarded because he is not a paleontologist, etc,…is there no one of any merit who disbelieves evolution?
Finally, we seem to be talking past one another to a degree with different meanings behind different terms. I am willing to wager that the gentleman who started this thread because his friend at work believes in evolution is debating someone who believes that monkey’s turned into men and that life started by chance.
I take it that many of you who believe in a natural origin of life do not believe in one or both of those theories but the reality is that that is what most people consider to be evolution. In most cases when we laypeople are debating other laypeople that is what we are up against.
I am closing out all…see you on other threads
C
cheddarsox
Guest
O
Orogeny
Guest
Sugar Ray:
talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote57
Peace
Tim
Here is a link with some information regarding that quote. As usual, the quote is taken completely out of context. Wald, in fact, was arguing FOR spontaneous generation.
talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote57
Peace
Tim
R
rossum
Guest
Chris W:
2 Evolution is wrong.
3 Therefore creationism is correct.
I am objecting to the first of these statements, which is a false dichotomy. In this context “we don’t know yet” is sufficient to destroy the logic of the argument and render the conclusion invalid. Since there is not enough evidence to establish creationism in its own right some creationists use this indirect argument to try to establish creationism. I am merely showing that the first statement is a false dichotomy and hence that the argument is invalid.
Chris W:
rossum
It is a perfectly good alternative for my purposes. I am objecting to the argument used by some creationists that runs:1 There are only two alternatives: creationism or evolution.rossum:
Again, that is not an alternative. That is an answer to the question but it is not an alternative to creation or evolution. An alternative would be “another possibile way it occurred”. I don’t know is not a possible way the universe came about.
2 Evolution is wrong.
3 Therefore creationism is correct.
I am objecting to the first of these statements, which is a false dichotomy. In this context “we don’t know yet” is sufficient to destroy the logic of the argument and render the conclusion invalid. Since there is not enough evidence to establish creationism in its own right some creationists use this indirect argument to try to establish creationism. I am merely showing that the first statement is a false dichotomy and hence that the argument is invalid.
Chris W:
Science cannot prove its theories in the sense that mathematical theorems can be proved. What scientific evidence can do is to show that scientific theories are correct “beyond reasonable doubt”, to borrow a phrase from the Criminal Justice System. It is perfectly possible to reach a conclusion in a discussion on that basis without expecting an absolute proof in the mathematical sense; scientists do it all the time.
rossum
C
Chris_W
Guest
I think I understand. In fact last night I intended to post again and ask that very question because I began to suspect your real objection was not to the idea that those are the only alternatives, but to the idea that they must necessarily be mutually exclusive. I think the only way you could realize the reasons the two do not coincide would be from a Catholic understanding of theology. You are Buddhist, so I can understand that you might object to that statement.
We would likely not come to agreement on that issue until we were of the same faith, in my opinion.
Interesting perspective.
I can see why that argument might annoy you. I’ll leave it at that.
I understand your logic. But consider mine:
Scientific evidence can show the theory of evolution to be likely or even perhaps highly probable only if scientific evidence is the only evidence permissable.
However, if one considers ALL the evidence available, including non-scientific evidences, like philosophy and reason, that very same theory could in fact be shown to be erroneous even in the face of that scientific evidence.
That is the case with evolution. I do not argue that the scientific evidence should necessarily lead to some other conclusion. I merely argue that the scientific evidence, when considered at the same time as other external evidences, is “over-ruled”, (to borrow a phrase from the criminal justice system
) and must be considered flawed in some way.I should clarify one more point: It is not the scientific evidence itself, or the experiments themselves, that I dispute necessarily. It is primarily the conclusions drawn from those evidences that I believe to be flawed.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
It’s a creative dodge. But a flawed one. The key to science is that it works. Inferences based on evidence have been shown to be vastly better than anything else we can use to understand the physical universe.
It can’t, of course work on the supernatural, or even comment on it.
The idea that we should abandon it, even if it’s the only thing that works, is a loser from the start.
Nature and God cannot conflict.
It can’t, of course work on the supernatural, or even comment on it.
The idea that we should abandon it, even if it’s the only thing that works, is a loser from the start.
Nature and God cannot conflict.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Why haven’t crocs, turtles and ferns changed?
**ARE CROCODILES AND THEIR RELATIVES REALLY UNCHANGED "LIVING FOSSILS?
No. So-called “living fossils” are never identical to the relatives that lived millions of years ago. They just look very similar. Crocodilians have maintained the same basic body plan over millions of years because it works so well. But they have undergone changes. Over time, crocodilians evolved a bony palate, their internal nostrils were pushed further back, and their spool-shaped vertebrae went from being biconcave to having a concave front and a convex back–a change that makes the vertebral column more flexible and strong. These subtle changes made crocodilians formidable underwater predators.
Furthermore, some very strange crocodilians have appeared in the fossil record that challenge the notion that these creatures are unchanged. For example, the strange pug-nosed herbivorous crocodile recently discovered in Madagascar is visibly very different from more familiar crocodilians. There are other oddities, too, like the pristichampsines, which were crocodilians with hoof-like toes. Visitors can read about other so-called “living fossils” in the exhibit, such as the pike in the lake diorama, at the Living Fossils, Primitive Pike, and Dangerous Waters components. The pike isn’t really unchanged, either. There is really no such thing as a living fossil because life is always changing.**
sdnhm.org/exhibits/crocs/tguide/tgcrocs.html
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/cnhc/images/!cof-gallop1.jpg
I’m no expert on crocs, but yes, they have changed tremendously. Most of them walked upright for most of their history, (some can still gallop when the need arises), and there was at least one herbivorous species.
**ARE CROCODILES AND THEIR RELATIVES REALLY UNCHANGED "LIVING FOSSILS?
No. So-called “living fossils” are never identical to the relatives that lived millions of years ago. They just look very similar. Crocodilians have maintained the same basic body plan over millions of years because it works so well. But they have undergone changes. Over time, crocodilians evolved a bony palate, their internal nostrils were pushed further back, and their spool-shaped vertebrae went from being biconcave to having a concave front and a convex back–a change that makes the vertebral column more flexible and strong. These subtle changes made crocodilians formidable underwater predators.
Furthermore, some very strange crocodilians have appeared in the fossil record that challenge the notion that these creatures are unchanged. For example, the strange pug-nosed herbivorous crocodile recently discovered in Madagascar is visibly very different from more familiar crocodilians. There are other oddities, too, like the pristichampsines, which were crocodilians with hoof-like toes. Visitors can read about other so-called “living fossils” in the exhibit, such as the pike in the lake diorama, at the Living Fossils, Primitive Pike, and Dangerous Waters components. The pike isn’t really unchanged, either. There is really no such thing as a living fossil because life is always changing.**
sdnhm.org/exhibits/crocs/tguide/tgcrocs.html
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/cnhc/images/!cof-gallop1.jpg
C
Chris_W
Guest
The Barbarian:
What are you calling a creative dodge?
You might reference what it is your addressing, as several topics have been discussed so far:
What are you calling a creative dodge?
H
harinkj
Guest
Very good post, Rossum. As a mathematician I can agree that mathematics is not science. I can postulate anything and possibly erect a logical structure from my aasumptions. Mathematics has no relation to reality.
But the scientific method can help discover the facts of reality, but it may not be totally understood. But the current basis of scientific knowledge can always be built on to get greater understanding.
- Kathie :bowdown:
S
Sugar_Ray
Guest
Orogeny:
Your link shows that the George Wald quote was indeed taken out of context. After saying the spontaneous generation of life was impossible he then went on to say given enough time anything is possible.
What your link did not mention however, is that the second law of thermodynamics is a stumbling block to the answer that enough time makes anything possible and that Wald himself conceded this was evolution’s biggest hurdle.
A hurdle that still has not been cleared.
See the link below…
greatcom.org/resources/reasons_skeptics/ch_18/default.htm
Your link shows that the George Wald quote was indeed taken out of context. After saying the spontaneous generation of life was impossible he then went on to say given enough time anything is possible.
What your link did not mention however, is that the second law of thermodynamics is a stumbling block to the answer that enough time makes anything possible and that Wald himself conceded this was evolution’s biggest hurdle.
A hurdle that still has not been cleared.
See the link below…
greatcom.org/resources/reasons_skeptics/ch_18/default.htm
Z
zian
Guest
Sugar Ray:
or here.
Since the laws of thermodynamics are one of the ways that scientists understand how it is that evolution does work, your point (and Josh McDowell’s and Henry Morris’s, etc.) is simply wrong. Read up on it; it’s really quite interesting.
Well, not exactly. Why don’t you have a look here , here,
or here.
Since the laws of thermodynamics are one of the ways that scientists understand how it is that evolution does work, your point (and Josh McDowell’s and Henry Morris’s, etc.) is simply wrong. Read up on it; it’s really quite interesting.
E
Eireann
Guest
Anyway thanks for all your replies, this is my first time to actually question this, I don’t actually believe in it but there you go.
Evolution due to adaptation to the inviroment and natural selection ?
I was thinking about some of the people that tried to climb mount Everest and sadly died on the way because they didn’t adapt to their inviroment.
Maybe by natural selection you mean if 50 tried to climb and only 10 made it, that would be natural selection, who knows
Because I’m a Catholic I don’t believe an animal has a soul, it has a spirit but not a soul.
So if we came from apes, then it stands to reason that apes should have a soul, but I don’t believe they have.
When was a soul put in man, after he came from an ape ? :ehh:
Oh another question because I’m only guessing this one,
but don’t apes have brown eyes ? do they have any other colour other than brown ?Man-kind is supposed to be the most intelligent being on earth,
sometimes I wonder, we’ve mad a bad mess of it if we are.If man came from an ape, then why aren’t apes turning into men
why are they still apes ?
Anyway back to the point about other living things not having souls, Jesus caught fish, I don’t think Jesus would have sanctioned the killing of fish if they had a soul.
Jesus placed great emphasis on the soul and not the body, if your eyes cause you to sin pluck it out, your hand cut it off.
It seems to me that if evolution is true, then everything passed on from it should have a soul.
Oh I know I ask the most awkard questions, probably stupid to some but to me reasonable.
I was listening to a Cardinal about two years ago from the Vatican, he said Science and nature work hand in hand,you cannot seperate science and nature.
My own thinking is God made nature and scientists study nature, so we are really a long way off even geting near to understanding creation.
Where science falls short on is understanding spiritual things, miraculous cures etc; apparations.
Anyway I think the one thing that marks us out as being different from the animal kingdom, is we have a soul.
- Status