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

[Edgar]

It seems to me that one of the meanings of Genesis, where it describes God’s forming mankind from the dust of the ground, is that we were directly created, and no randomness entered into the final picture of what our bodies would be like.

To deny that Genesis 2:7 describes Adam being created from inanimate matter is to simply ignore its obvious meaning. But evolutions do exactly that for the sake of a very dubious pseudo-scientific theory. Bizarre.

 

[Edgar]

You claim things with no intelligence create instructions, you claiming magic. You can put the word ‘science’ around it, but you can’t hide the blunt offense to logic you’re committing.

Welcome to the mad, sad world of evolutionary biology, where fantasy, speculation and magic are passed off as “science”.

 

[rossum]

These are examples of “evolution” within a species,

Which is what I was asked for. Techno2000 said “too vague” so I gave some specific examples of natural selection at work.

 

[rossum]

So, what are your sceintific explanations for your Buddhist believes in karma and reincarnation? (which require intelligence, btw)

Karma does not require intelligence and more than gravity does. If you throw a stone straight up in the air then it will come down and hit you on the head. Karma is the same: actions have consequences. If you do the actions then you will reap the consequences:

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with a pure mind then happiness will follow you,
as a shadow that never leaves.

– Dhammapada 1:1-2

You still have no explanation for the origin of your proposed designer. An intelligent designer is a complex entity, yet you have no explanation for the origin of that complexity. You do not explain complexity, you merely assume it.

 

[rossum]

I don’t know why you’re using insects as an argument for the evolution of an animal heart

Because soft tissue from that long ago is unknown. I have to rely on possible examples from contemporary animals. The current mammalian circulatory system did not appear in one single giant step, it appeared gradually in lots of different steps. For example, crocodile hearts are not the same as mammal hearts. Insects are a potential model for the very early development of the tetrapod heart. The early stages would not have been the same as the current, much more developed, stage.

 

[Aloysium]

Karma does not require intelligence and more than gravity does.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with a pure mind then happiness will follow you,
as a shadow that never leaves.

– Dhammapada 1:1-2

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Aloysium]

You still have no explanation for the origin of your proposed designer. An intelligent designer is a complex entity, yet you have no explanation for the origin of that complexity.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.

It’s something along the lines of what he said. “Mind” points to the fundamental Reality who brings all into existence, from the simplest to the most complex of beings.

 

[rossum]

It’s something along the lines of what he said. “Mind” points to the fundamental Reality who brings all into existence, from the simplest to the most complex of beings.

No. "Mind points to your own mind, you mind that decides how and when to act. Those actions, or inactions, are what have consequences.

 

[Aloysium]

It is the mind at work that can know and organize those facts into theoretical systems. Its structure physically manifests itself as organization of the neural network that is the brain, giving it substance in time and space. We do not bring it into existence, but rather we are given life by Life itself. And, that existence is Triune in nature - a self-other connection, which is Love. We decide how and when to act on the basis of that fundamental reality. The Dharma, the cosmic order is at the basis of karma. We may create our own moral system, but it may be in opposition to the laws which govern its cause and effect. What is a pure heart or mind is given and a state to which we must strive to achieve communion within the greater Mind who brings every moment into existence as one Beatific Vision.

 

[edwest]

Why uh, I don’t know.

 

[edwest]

That exposes the whole promotion program going on in this thread. Any dissent must give way to science being the only source of true knowledge. God/gods? Pfft, you must be kidding. No “rational” person can accept that. Which, of course, begs the question of Why do so many people fall for New Age nonsense? I’ve read the books. I know they’re hoping that crystals, or something non-God, will bring them happiness or whatever. It’s just fakery and a repackaging of older material.

 

[Rubee]

You still have no explanation for the origin of your proposed designer. An intelligent designer is a complex entity, yet you have no explanation for the origin of that complexity. You do not explain complexity, you merely assume it.

You have it the complete other way around, again: God is absolute simplicity. The opposite of complexity.

 

[Rubee]

Karma does not require intelligence and more than gravity does. If you throw a stone straight up in the air then it will come down and hit you on the head. Karma is the same: actions have consequences. If you do the actions then you will reap the consequences:

How is this possible in the material universe you’re arguing for? Where’s the evidence for karma?

 

[rossum]

You have it the complete other way around, again: God is absolute simplicity. The opposite of complexity.

Thank you for completely destroying the argument for Intelligent Design. God is alive and intelligent. If intelligence and life are simple, then there is no reason that both life and intelligence cannot be formed by simple natural processes.

The basis of the argument for ID is that simple natural processes cannot form complex things. That argument fails if life, and intelligence, are both themselves simple, not complex.

 

[Rubee]

Thank you for completely destroying the argument for Intelligent Design. God is alive and intelligent. If intelligence and life are simple, then there is no reason that both life and intelligence cannot be formed by simple natural processes.

Nah. There’s nothing about biological life that’s simple. Material things are made of parts. They are composite. That’s the complexity I’m talking about. Spirit is non-composite, hence ‘simple’. It just means one and indivisible: irreducible. So…zero to do with your arguments I’m afraid. It’s far more difficult for a human mind to grasp simplicity, and in the case of the divine simplicity, impossible. We just know from logic that God must be simple. That’s not something you can grasp, though, I’m afraid. Coz you a puny human.

I think scientists should take philosophy classes. Just a btw.

 

[rossum]

How is this possible in the material universe you’re arguing for? Where’s the evidence for karma?

I am not arguing for a material universe; the universe is partly material and partly immaterial. Some things are material, and formed by material processes – the physical human body being one example. Other things are immaterial and are not formed by material processes – karma formations (samskara) for example.

Science is the best way we have found so far to study the material part of the universe. The immaterial parts are outwith the remit of science.

 

[rossum]

Spirit is non-composite, hence ‘simple’.

The trinitarian God has to be composite. The Son does not know the date of the millennium, the Father does. One single non-composite entity cannot both know and not know the same thing. Hence there are at least two separate parts to the trinitarian God.

Since God acts in time, then He is also composite in time. At one time God was parting the sea for Moses. At other times He was not parting the sea. Since the same entity cannot do both, then there is a composition in time. This argument applies to any entity which acts within time, and is due to Nagarjuna.

I think scientists should take philosophy classes.

I have. Nagarjuna comes at things from a different, Buddhist, perspective. For example, God-as-creator is contingent on the existence of creation. If there is no creation then God cannot be the creator. The effect is dependent on the cause and equally, the cause is dependent on the effect. You cannot be a parent if you don’t have any children.

 

[Rubee]

So you assume Karma just is, then? How is this different from what you’re attacking in creationists who believe that God just is?

Given reality is material and immaterial, as you admit, how is it reasonable to insist apriori that only material processes explain life? How is this not just an arbitrary decision?

 

[Rubee]

The trinitarian God has to be composite. The Son does not know the date of the millennium, the Father does. One single non-composite entity cannot both know and not know the same thing. Hence there are at least two separate parts to the trinitarian God.

Utterly untrue. The divine nature is one and indivisible, that’s why the procession of knowing (that we call God the Son) and the procession of Love (That we call God the Holy Spirit) do not turn into 2 other gods. There are no parts in the divine nature, only three "I"s that possess the same undivided nature. It’s not that God the son gets a third of God and the other two each get a third too. That’s why we’re monotheists and not polytheists.

Since God acts in time, then He is also composite in time. At one time God was parting the sea for Moses. At other times He was not parting the sea. Since the same entity cannot do both, then there is a composition in time. This argument applies to any entity which acts within time, and is due to Nagarjuna.

God does not act “in time”, that’s the perception of temporal beings. God does not change in the way you’re describing. Rather we experience God in different times and places He remains the same. More of that beyond-human-comprehension thing.

 

[rossum]

Given reality is material and immaterial, as you admit, how is it reasonable to insist apriori that only material processes explain life? How is this not just an arbitrary decision?

I do not. Life requires up to five components. Physical form is one of the optional components since purely immaterial entities do not have it. However, as the other four components are found in Buddhist scriptures I am not discussing them (much) in this thread, which is about evolution – a material process.