Human Evolution

[Mark Quayle]

Posit b is an unsupported assertion, not an implication.

So is posit a. I don't pretend to go through my reasons why I believe both a and b to be true. The whole thing is an if, including its components. In b, I assert an implication.

 

[eleos1954]

Semantic arguments in a scientific discussion mean you've already lost.

Again, evolution is a scientific theory, not a "worldview". I realize YECs are desperately trying to find a way to attack evolution since you can't address the science, but no. Magic words like "worldview" don't address the science.

a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint.

One specific standpoint is science .... another is creation (and there are other worldviews). ie coming from a specific standpoint.

Science don't have all the answers ...

There is information collected and that information is interpreted and/or theorized as to what is could mean. There are many different interpretations and theories about a lot of things.

Through science we have learned that life is VERY complex, the universe is extremely vast and that it is amazingly fine tuned.

We debate the various details (information collected) but real basically it ends up being happen chance or design ... or the mingling of the two. All are theories, all are plausible and debatable. Why? Because none of them can be indisputably proven.

The only indisputable fact there is .... is .... life on planet earth exists, beyond that it's debatable on how that could have happened and will continue to be that way.

and ... the beat goes on ;o)

 

[eleos1954]

The dictionary refers to USE of a word. Not fact of what the word represents.

from the dictionary

a book or electronic resource that lists the words of a language (typically in alphabetical order) and gives their meaning, or gives the equivalent words in a different language, often also providing information about pronunciation, origin, and usage.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

So is posit a.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming (oops!) that you were trying to echo the options A. First Cause has a mind B. First Cause does not have a mind

I don't pretend to go through my reasons why I believe both a and b to be true. The whole thing is an if, including its components. In b, I assert an implication.

If you are just making assertions then why pretend to have a logical argument?

 

[doubtingmerle]

At the end of your OP, you said:
"None of that (your descriptions of natural events and progressions) requires direct intervention of God. It is simply the working of nature, driving one evolutionary line in a unique direction after a number of prior adaptions had given that genus a unique survival strategy. No miracle was required." My remark, "Where did nature come from?" was in direct answer to your claim that no direct intervention of God was required. It was not a change of subject. I did not "ignore the OP", and the question was not "out of the blue". And so far, you have not answered that question.

First, if you are going to insert your comments into a quote, please use brackets instead of parenthesis.

Second, when I said, "none of that," it clearly means that which I had just said, namely the description of human evolution. It does not mean "none of anything I ever said".

I read what the link took me to, and it was not particularly enlightening —basically more of the same as the OP.

If you read what I wrote at Is There a God? - The Mind Set Free, how is it you appear to completely misunderstand what I wrote there? Read it.

You say, "Your response indicated you weren't really interested in the cause of nature."
Perhaps I didn't agree with your thesis. But my whole reason for asking the question, "where did nature come from" obviously shows I'm interested in the cause of nature, or I wouldn't have asked it.

Understood. But at first I thought by "nature" you were talking about physics. Later, it appeared you were changing the topic to the origin of logic and math.

If you wanted to argue for the origin of physics, you could at least make an argument that sounds reasonable.

But if you try to claim there could be no mathematical facts without God, your arguments just looks plain silly.

Yours was no doubt logical enough, if one can ignore the logical necessity of first cause.

Clearly you did not read what is in the link. There I mention first cause multiple times. (Note: I do not capitalize "first cause". When I speak of first cause, I am speaking of the ultimate explanation for reality.) As I mention there, this first cause likely does not have a mind, and if not, it would not be proper to call it God. You could read what I said if you are interested. Instead, you argue about what I said, with no apparent understanding of what is there.

Pro 18:13
He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.​

You say, "In your last response, you complain endlessly that I am discussing mathematics and logic. Darn right! Who hijacked this thread anyway? You did. Who insisted that we had to talk about the origin of mathematics and logic? You did. Fine. I obliged you. Now you complain endlessly that I am discussing the origin of mathematics and logic." In my last response I complain endlessly that you attribute actual status or value to a logically self-contradictory notion —and not only that, but that you give it governing powers over self-existent first cause!

Once again, I am stating that 2 + 2 = 10 is logically self-contradictory regardless of whether a God exists. It is inherently contradictory.

You, on the other hand, have implied that it is contradictory only because God said so. If there is no God, your argument implies that there would be no law that says 2 + 2 <> 10.

In my first paragraph in this current post, I show that I did NOT change the subject of the OP, thus I did NOT hijack your thread. Do you misrepresent all your opponents this way?

Good grief. Get over it. This thread was supposed to be about human evolution. Read the title of the thread and the OP. You however, insisted we need to talk about the origin of math. You changed the topic. Fine. Its done. I'll go along with the new topic. Let's move on, please.

If you do not think the title and OP made it clear I wanted to specifically discuss human evolution, can you let me know how I could have written differently so you would understand what I intended?

When you handed me a lemon, I made lemonade. Do you like that poem I wrote about your new subject?

 

[Astrid]

a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint.

One specific standpoint is science .... another is creation (and there are other worldviews). ie coming from a specific standpoint.

Science don't have all the answers ...

There is information collected and that information is interpreted and/or theorized as to what is could mean. There are many different interpretations and theories about a lot of things.

Through science we have learned that life is VERY complex, the universe is extremely vast and that it is amazingly fine tuned.

We debate the various details (information collected) but real basically it ends up being happen chance or design ... or the mingling of the two. All are theories, all are plausible and debatable. Why? Because none of them can be indisputably proven.

The only indisputable fact there is .... is .... life on planet earth exists, beyond that it's debatable on how that could have happened and will continue to be that way.

and ... the beat goes on ;o)

Nobody remotely claims that science has all the answers.

You though do claim that there are " a lot of different .
interpretations and theories about a lot things,".

Really? Please give us some examples of "a lot" of different theories
on "a lot" of different things.

Theories require facts so much that you call theory is not theory.
And no theory can be proved, so some very basic misunderstanding is revealed here.

I don't know where you got the notion that science has " learned that the universe is fine tuned.". We need a reference.

Back to your dichotomy of science and creation being
different standpoints. They aren't, really. A god could havestartedthe universe.
Science just studies how it works. Even the most rabid creatiinist
allows for the rational study of auto mechanics.


The dichotomy is that meticulous study, and rational thought
is the way to achieve understanding in an ordered universe.

The other shuns such, calls it foolishness.
The source of knowledge is revelation, and the order of things is essentially magical, that anything could happen and order is illusory.

The beat about proving theories and science not being
perfect does not HAVE to go on and on, does it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Please give us some examples of "a lot" of different theories ...

QV please:

How the Moon Formed: 5 Wild Lunar Theories

Note the name of the site.

ETA: Here's another one:

31 Major Learning Theories in Education

And another one:

Abiogenesis: 7 Scientific Theories for the Origin of Life

Even more:

4 Main Theories of Evolution

(Someone help me! I can't stop! )

 

[Mark Quayle]

"But Daddy, why is there a universe?"

"Because there was a Big Bang."

"But Daddy, why was there a Big Bang?"

"We think it was because of cosmic inflation and quantum effects."

"But why was there cosmic inflation and quantum effects?"

"We don't know. Maybe they always existed. Or maybe there was something else that caused them."

"But Daddy, what caused the cause of the inflation that caused the Big Bang?"

"Ultimately we don't know. Eventually we must come down to something that somehow causes it all. Let's call that the first cause."

"But why did the first cause decide to create the cause of the universe?"

"The first cause might not have even had a mind. After all, it is difficult to even conceive of a mind when there is no substance around to store memories. How can a mind function without substances to make a memory? If the first cause didn't have a mind, maybe it just randomly made multiverses that occasionally made universes."

"But Daddy, why don't we just ignore a first cause without a mind and pretend there are only two options: God, or a strawman alternative?"

"You don't want to ignore arguments, son. Else, you might grow up to be a Creationist."

"I don't want to be a Creationist."

"Smart kid."

Funny how Romans 1 agrees —people don't want to be creationists.

 

[AV1611VET]

Funny how Romans 1 agrees —people don't want to be creationists.

Some end up becoming atheists.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

 

[doubtingmerle]

Funny how Romans 1 agrees —people don't want to be creationists.

If creationism had convincing evidence, I would want to be a creationist.

But if I had to ignore evidence to stay a Creationist, then no, that wouldn't be my thing.

 

[AV1611VET]

If creationism had convincing evidence, I would want to be a creationist.

What an odd statement.

What kind of evidence are you expecting to see?

Ion trail? time crystals? vapor clouds? microwave background? spare parts lying around?

What exactly?

 

[doubtingmerle]

What an odd statement.

What kind of evidence are you expecting to see?

Ion trail? time crystals? vapor clouds? microwave background? spare parts lying around?

What exactly?

At my website I show evidence that the earth is billions of years old. If you want me to believe it is only a few thousand of years old, you would need convincing evidence that the argument I make there is wrong. See How Old is the Earth? - The Mind Set Free.

I also show evidence that life evolved at Did We Evolve? - The Mind Set Free . If you want me to believe we did not evolve, you would need convincing evidence that the argument I make there is wrong.

If you think you have good evidence that shows either of those pages is wrong, I would be willing to start a thread and give you the opportunity to make your case.

 

[Astrid]

At my website I show evidence that the earth is billions of years old. If you want me to believe it is only a few thousand of years old, you would need convincing evidence that the argument I make there is wrong. See How Old is the Earth? - The Mind Set Free.

I also show evidence that life evolved at Did We Evolve? - The Mind Set Free . If you want me to believe we did not evolve, you would need convincing evidence that the argument I make there is wrong.

If you think you have good evidence that shows either of those pages is wrong, I would be willing to start a thread and give you the opportunity to make your case.

I would literally be the intellectual thrill of a lifetime to see even
one fact to contradict evolution or deep time.

 

[Astrid]

If creationism had convincing evidence, I would want to be a creationist.

But if I had to ignore evidence to stay a Creationist, then no, that wouldn't be my thing.

Ignoring evidence is intellectual dishonesty, a total failure
of integrity.
Maybe that's why you don't think it would be groovy.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you think you have good evidence that shows either of those pages is wrong, I would be willing to start a thread and give you the opportunity to make your case.

Nice dodge.

I'll give you another chance.

What SPECIFIC evidence are you expecting to see, that would lead you to believe that God created this Earth by speaking it into existence from absolutely nothing?

Ion trail? vapor cloud? microwave background? spare parts lying around?

What exactly.

If I built a doghouse, I'd have bits of wood lying around that I had sawed off of boards.

But if I spoke that doghouse into existence from nothing, there would be no bits of wood lying around.

So what is it you're expecting to see that should be lying around?

 

[AV1611VET]

I would literally be the intellectual thrill of a lifetime to see even one fact to contradict evolution or deep time.

You'd have to recognize it first, before you get goosebumps.

And you can't even articulate what would do that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ignoring evidence is intellectual dishonesty, a total failure of integrity.

So is expecting evidence of something that didn't generate any.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Nice dodge.

I'll give you another chance.

What SPECIFIC evidence are you expecting to see, that would lead you to believe that God created this Earth by speaking it into existence from absolutely nothing?

Ion trail? vapor cloud? microwave background? spare parts lying around?

What exactly.

If I built a doghouse, I'd have bits of wood lying around that I had sawed off of boards.

But if I spoke that doghouse into existence from nothing, there would be no bits of wood lying around.

So what is it you're expecting to see that should be lying around?

The problem is the things that are lying around: fossils, rocks, DNA evidence, distant starlight, etc. All indicate the earth is millions of years old and life evolved. If I were to become a young earth Creationist, I would need to ignore this evidence, yes?

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem is the things that are lying around: fossils, rocks, DNA evidence, distant starlight, etc. All indicate the earth is millions of years old and life evolved. If I were to become a young earth Creationist, I would need to ignore this evidence, yes?

I tried.

 

[Astrid]

The problem is the things that are lying around: fossils, rocks, DNA evidence, distant starlight, etc. All indicate the earth is millions of years old and life evolved. If I were to become a young earth Creationist, I would need to ignore this evidence, yes?

Nah. Just use SEDI