Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[buffalo]

Giving both processes (atomic formation and diversity of life forms) a general label of “creation” does not diminish the fact that they are significantly different processes, so that the description of how one of them works is not applicable to how the other one works.

One is top down and one is bottom up.

Top down makes philosophical sense. Bottom up is philosophically absurd.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Giving both processes (atomic formation and diversity of life forms) a general label of “creation” does not diminish the fact that they are significantly different processes, so that the description of how one of them works is not applicable to how the other one works.

One is top down and one is bottom up.

Top down makes philosophical sense. Bottom up is philosophically absurd.

This unexplained distinction adds nothing to the discussion. (But it sounds good.)

 

[Aloysium]

adds nothing to the discussion

If understood, it would.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm not sure if evolution is true.
Why is that?
Well, I was talking to this guy and he said he it was nonsense.
Ah. Is that the guy who believes in Noah's ark?
Yeah.
And all the animals (including koalas and kangaroos) were saved two by two?
Yeah.
And the first woman was made from a man's rib?
Well, yeah.
And there was a real garden with a fruit tree and a talking snake?
Well…
And dinosaurs lived at the same time as man?
OK…
And if we stop breeding dogs then they will turn back into wolves?
Allright! Enough already! He didn't mention any of that.
Well, you should dig a little deeper. It helps to know how scientifically literate someone is if they want to discuss science.

 

[rossum]

They both involve the creation of a kind of being.

No. The Big Bang did not create any beings. It created space-time (probably) and a whole lot of photons and other more exotic particles.

All this that we are discussing is information.

Science has an explanation for the origin of information; creationism assumes it without providing any explanation. What is your explanation for the origin of information? Hint: the answer you probably think of first has a big problem.

We are a larger unity that brings together all that information: atoms united as cells, brought together as the organ systems that constitute the person.

You are omitting the soul from that list. Souls are not made of atoms or cells; without the soul all you have is a physical body. Science only explains the physical body, it does not explain any of the many versions of ‘soul’ found in various religions.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

The Big Bang did not create any beings

Agreed, God did.

Science has an explanation for the origin of information

No it does not have an explanation. It merely states what did happen, not its cause.
Again the points on a trajectory are not causally related scientifically.
A cause must come from outside the system, like we ourselves in a finite sense, God in the totality of everything that is.

Science only explains the physical body

It describes what goes on in a phsical body, its structure and physiology. That limited scope prevents it from explaining our origins, what we are as ourselves as individuals and as one humanity, which came into existence in time. The soul is the reality of what is a living thing, organizing its material information into that whole.

 

[Aloysium]

I’m sure evolution is not true, and I’ve said it was nonsense.

Ah. Is that the guy who believes in Noah’s ark?
Yes.
And all the animals (including koalas and kangaroos) were saved two by two?
It’s a bit more complicated than that. What occurred in time and space altered mankind’s relationship with God. That is the central point; the particulars of the actual historical event are open to speculation.

And the first woman was made from a man’s rib?
For sure. That’s as best as we can understand what is beyond our capacity to put into words, given that we base our understandings on our relationship with this world.

And there was a real garden with a fruit tree and a talking snake?
Yes. But, ditto what I said right above

And dinosaurs lived at the same time as man?
I don’t think there is evidence to suggest that, but I understand others do.

And if we stop breeding dogs then they will turn back into wolves?
I don’t see that happening, but in the land of weird hypotheticals, what we might see are dingos.

It can help to know how scientifically literate someone is in order to formulate a better response, but since the subject matter requires some degree of insight, a general skepticism about one’s own beliefs and a capacity to think outside the box, it usually doesn’t matter; all some people seem to hear is a word salad.

 

[buss0042]

There is evidence for large regional floods in certain areas of the earth, but not a global flood.

There quite literally isn’t enough water, frozen or atmospheric or of any kind, to flood the entire world to the point where there is no dry land

 

[Bradskii]

There actually is something not far off that list when it comes to how people, especially me, relate to those within the forum. At least as in a mental list. I think it’s pretty much how we all relate to people with whom we talk. We chat away nicely about sport or politics or the weather and then they’ll drop into conversation something that makes you go: wha…?

You might have been talking about dogs and he says: Well, we better keep breeding them as otherwise they’ll all turn back into wolves!

And you let it slide. Obviously some joke. But then we turn to local fauna and he says: It must have been a pain getting all those euchalyptus leaves on board the ark for the koalas. Y’know, getting them all the way to the Middle East in all that rain.

And you start to check what he’s drinking. Because he goes on about some guy getting swallowed by a whale and seas being parted and talking donkeys. And it’s just two guys talking at a bar and you’re a reasonable bloke so you don’t want to say what’s really on your mind. I mean, live and let live I say. If that’s what he believes then go for it. He probably thinks the world is flat and is the centre of the universe and no-one’s been to the moon. Because gee, he doesn’t show any indication of being able to grasp basic scientific principles. So why limit it to arks and ribs?

And some of your mates start taking the mickey out of him. And you find yourself having to support his right to believe whatever he wants, however dumb everyone else thinks it is. And they grumble a little but you persuade them that he’s harmless.

But whenever he collars someone in the bar (in a thread) and goes on and on about how science is wrong and he’s right (posts another link which he doesn’t actually understand doesn’t support his position) then some will get caught up into the discussion and they’ll try and put him straight and show him where he’s wrong. But mostly he’s ignored.

In most bars (the majority of the civilised world) he’s pigeon-holed with flat-earthers and moon-landing-deniers and trailer park dwellers who want to tell you that they were abducted by aliens. And in most bars, people have a whinge about the standard of education that results in these beliefs.

But it’s a side show. Like watching those ‘Epic Fail’ clips on the TV over the bar while you’re waiting to get another beer. Part of you thinks - how can people be that dumb? But there it is. Every day. Same ol’ same ol’. You know you shouldn’t be watching. But it draws one’s attention.

 

[rossum]

No it does not have an explanation. It merely states what did happen, not its cause.

Consider the terabytes of information in a pebble. The causes of that information are the Big Bang which gave rise to the particles in that pebble. The electromagnetic, weak and strong forces which formed those particles into atoms. The electromagnetic force which assembled the atoms into molecules. The gravitational and electromagnetic forces which assembled those molecules into a pebble. What do you think is missing?

Again the points on a trajectory are not causally related scientifically.

What on earth does that mean? Are you saying that the earth’s orbit is random and is not scientifically predictable because the calculated points on the ellipse are “not causally related”? This is scientifically ludicrous, I’m afraid. Have you gone off at one of your theological/philosophical tangents again?

A cause must come from outside the system, like we ourselves in a finite sense, God in the totality of everything that is.

False. The cause of the heat at the centre of the earth is radioactive decay of some elements within that same core. The cause is part of the system. You are making a sweeping philosophical statement which is easily proved false.

Many people have short sight. What external cause is acting, as opposed to internal causes to do with the structure of the eye?

You seem to be trying to mix science and philosophy/theology. That is a category error, since science does not derive its knowledge from the same sources as either philosophy or theology. What is true in one system is not necessarily true in either of the other systems.

rossum

 

[edwest211]

If you were standing next to Jesus when he called a just starting to decompose Lazarus from the tomb, would that be impossible? When He and His disciples were out in open water and He commanded the storm to stop and it did, was that a trick? How about when He rose from the dead? When Catholics are told God created the Universe out of nothing, are there many problems with that? When Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes?

When Thomas doubted, Jesus understood his desire for proof, so He invited him to look at and even probe his wounds.

 

[edwest211]

And that is why there is a divide. Science is incomplete. It is lacking vital information.

 

[buffalo]

There is evidence for large regional floods in certain areas of the earth, but not a global flood.

There quite literally isn’t enough water, frozen or atmospheric or of any kind, to flood the entire world to the point where there is no dry land

Yes, there is. If the ocean trenches are filled and the mountains flat the earth would be under 9000 feet of water. Now add in the vast underground reservoirs and the water locked in the rocks and there is plenty.

 

[edwest211]

God can do what only God can do.

 

[edwest211]

You seem to be an expert regarding “most bars.” Interesting

 

[buss0042]

And this would all spontaneously burst out onto the scene one day, only to disappear 40 days later by freezing/evaporating/sinking? Nah, nice try though. You can create a new thread for this if you like though, there’s plenty of ammunition

 

[Aloysium]

What on earth does that mean? Are you saying that the earth’s orbit is random and is not scientifically predictable because the calculated points on the ellipse are “not causally related”?

It is so difficult to communicate! If what I say is misunderstood, it may very well strike one as an absurdity. In other words, to be precise, that this too might not be misinterpreted, I said nothing of the kind.

I assume you understand what is a trajectory. We can make that path occurring in space-time (hoping the reader is still with me) analogous to any material change. According to science, and we have been through this before, every moment into which we can insert an observer, exists as an event in four dimensions (t,x,y,z). The trajectory can be mapped within that system from its beginning to its end.

Any one point does not “cause” the next. The cause, gravity or any other force of nature involved in the change, is external to the event although at the same time it is intrinisic to it.

Because we are rational, spiritual creatures, we can intellectually insert ourselves into any trajectory. Because it is a feature of our free will that it is situated in eternity, we can cause things to happen. If we are not involved, events proceed as they should in accordance with their properties. Again, events in time do not truly cause the next to happen. This idea of cause and effect is a layman’s understanding which does not acknowledge the role of the person who can actually cause something to happen utilizing the properties of nature which determine events. Ultimately all cause stems from eternity.

This is basic physics as understood within its metaphysical context.

 

[Aloysium]

You seem to be trying to mix science and philosophy/theology.

This is all an attempt to describe reality as best I can. Without an understand of matter’s metaphysical/ontological reality, what emerges is illusion.

 

[Aloysium]

some guy getting swallowed by a whale

I couldn’t let this go by. Thank you for bringing up one of my favourite stories.

Let’s begin with how it reveals the Word of God. It speaks to His having chosen the Jews as the vehicle through whom He could establish a dialogue with all mankind. He demonstrates love for us all, the wicked and the faithful, and how, like Noah, we are all sinful, reluctant to do His will. As justice has it, the further we stray from doing His will, the poorer our lives; the greater the blessings we receive, the more is expected of us and the greater the suffering when we fail to give them fruit. The three days in the belly of the whale foretell the three days Jesus will spend in hell before His resurrection, and illustrate how, in our suffering, we too are reborn in His love.

Not only is it a totally coherent story that for me, speaks to the reality of certain events and the struggle of one person, but I believe it took place in time and space, on earth. In other words, it is historical.

As to why it’s my favourite story, I’d have to speak personally and it would take at least a couple of posts to scratch the surface. In a summary of the summary, suffice to say that when the people I knew thought of me as a Buddhist, the story was used as a sort of koan, to clear my mind of illusion. At a time when I again realized that my world view could not contain the reality that I had before me, and finding in Christianity its clearest description, the basic plan was to assume the story, the most bizarre that I could come up with, to be true and investigate what it was that caused me not to believe it. What did it actually mean and where did I come up with those concepts that gave rise to the conflict? What would be the nature of reality if it were true? Getting into every character was fairly easy, because they are so alive. That of Noah, I seemed to know from the inside, having spent a year in earthly hell as a result of a major acute episode, among other chronic health issues - life in the coldness of the belly of the beast, in an uncaring ocean, relentlessly pursuing its goal, that of survival - the meeting of my responsibilities one day at a time. Noah-in-the-whale, that was me. Needles to say, I was spit up on the shore with a different vision of reality, which I continue to pursue.

 

[rossum]

Any one point does not “cause” the next. The cause, gravity or any other force of nature involved in the change, is external to the event although at the same time it is intrinisic to it.

“External” depends on where you draw the boundaries. If you draw the boundary at the neck then the cause of you wiggling your toes is external. If you draw the boundary to include the head and brain, then the cause is internal. You need to justify your choice of boundary.

In General Relativity, gravity is a local phenomenon, and is equivalent to the local curvature of space-time. A moving particle follows the local geodesic. In this case “local” can be very small indeed.

rossum