Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy! (Moved)

[Astrid]

Let me be clear about this, perhaps I had not been. I am asking for evidence from fossils. Yes, biological families are relevant to that. I see from examples I find of specimens lined up illustrated in apparent sequence for evolution from one to another, which are yet distinct and not species to species. These are gaps to me, and those are not convincing of evolution. And I once believed evolution was explained when I was in school. As a believer I came to where I admitted I saw these gaps, with nothing shown species to species outside of biological families, that still remain. Out of all the specimens from fossils, there should be some example of a direct ancestor species to another species that is classified in a new biological family if evolution explains it. I tried just now to word that in a clear way, I don't know if I can ask for such an example in a better way. If families are explained again to me as being arbitrary then there still would be sequences of direct descent to what any would recognize as a distinct biological family, and I want the fossil specimens shown which designate that species to species. There are many many fossils and there would be something to show for that if evolution is shown from the fossils.

What was shown for me is a hypothetical animal. I am not asking for that to be shown. Of course there are hypothetical creatures thought of to explain things, including in the gaps between fossil specimens that were to be sequential in evolution. And I understand genetic relationship claimed, but that is not anything showing they were not created by the Creator they have in common. I really understand the Creator can use the same design in many ways. So it is fossil specimens that are needed to show me evidence I ask for.



Actually I know evolution theory is constantly revised and the order has changed a bit over the decades. Things according to evolution theory have already been shown to be wrong, among the scientists and teachers holding to the theory, and they hold now to the current accepted form. And it would still change when things of that are shown to be wrong. Evolution theory itself is unfalsifiable.

I see from the Bible account that forms of life were created, and not eons apart. It is not a view from science, but I don't see enough convincing from evolution theory to dismiss that.



I don't agree that it is whiny, but others use that accusation, and I see you fluctuate between being somewhat understanding and admitting I am open to seeing new things, as I am, and belittling then too, such as with the whiny being insulting accusation. I can say you tried with responses, but as I ask for something not yet shown I tried to be clearer. I still try to have the communication go somewhere. If it can't there is no reason to go on.

What other interpretation do you see possible? You have not explained that.

Three complants in a row of being ill used gives
an impression of whining. Don't do it if you don't want to
give said impression.
And don't talk to me if you don't like blunt talk.

On other matters-
Too much to address in one post.

First though, your "TOE is unfalsifiable" is a bit of garbage
straight from AIG. The description of how science is done
is nonsense as is the conclusion. Basically it's saying "them
evos are a bunch of intellectually dishonest fools".

ToE probably cannot be falsified, because it probably is not false.

These days it's called "disproof". It probably cannot be disproved as
there probably is no disproof.

AIG and it's kind arec always offering specious " disproof"
any of which would do, if they were true.

Ye Cambrian bunny, would do fine. Any mammal in the Devonian,
that kind of thing.

There's endless things that WOULD disprove it, if they exist.

To say it "cannot be" is parroting creationist site cant.


Second, anyone who has not seen that the biblical account
of creation is a 100% mismatch* to all known relevant data
has not looked very hard.

*depending of course on how liberal one wants
to be in the interpretation of said account.

 

[Astrid]

Getting out and seeing the Earth isn't so bad. Quite an enjoyment for me. It's where God becomes alive.

St. Augustine would not agree

 

[dlamberth]

St. Augudtine would not agree

I think the worst thing we ever did was to put God in the sky out of reach.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think the worst thing we ever did was to put God in the sky out of reach.

That was you, was it?

So where should you have put God?

 

[Tinker Grey]

That was you, was it?

So where should you have put God?

In the dustbin of history. YMMV

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In the dustbin of history. YMMV

Lol! There was me thinking it was supposed to be God that put us here, but now I find it was they who put God there... Confusing or what?

 

[dlamberth]

That was you, was it?

I guess so.

So where should you have put God?

Divinity seen in the leaf. In our dance, song and tears. Basically everywhere. We lost a lot when song and dance was taken out of prayer and made it sit up straight on a bench. And we've stripped the sacred from everywhere and put a cloud man elsewhere. Not sure if I answered or not.

 

[Astrid]

Let me be clear about this, perhaps I had not been. I am asking for evidence from fossils.

What was shown for me is a hypothetical animal.

not anything showing they were not created by the

I see from the Bible account that forms of life were created, and not eons apart. It is not a view from science, but I don't see enough convincing from evolution theory to dismiss that.

What other interpretation do you see possible? You have not explained that.

The specimen I linked to is not hypothetical. You wanted something to
connect FAMILIES. I gave it to you. Now you want every single specimen
in a sequence between a grizzly bear and a black bear.
It. Is not at all clear what you are actually asking for.
'Species to species" will never take you from "family to family"
That's not how it works.
When I asked why "family" ( out of kingdom, phylum, class, order
family genus sprcies) you just said it's "relevant".

Nobody says living things were nor celated by God. THAT is irrelevant.

What is obvious to any educated person is that all living things did not
suddenly come into existence in their present form. As per literal reading of genesis.
None of them did.
Search in vain for aTriassic horse. A Permian oak tree.
They don't exist.
Instead there are clear sequences of development to present forms.

I asked how you propose to explain that,, if the ToE is
false..

If yiu are unaware, "unconvincrd" by this, it's on you,not on the
evidence which exists in vast abundance with ZERO inconsistent
with deep time and ToE.

I don't know why you are here to talk about this.
If you wish to learn some geology etc, there are many fine
sources.
If you have determined that your view is immutably correct, then
what is to discuss or learn?

We cite Dr, K Wise, PhD paleontology.

".....if all the evidence in the universe turned against yec, I'd still be yec
as that is what the Bible seem to indicate".

I will leave it to you to decide if that is an example of intellectual
integrity.

 

[Astrid]

I guess so.

Divinity seen in the leaf. In our dance, song and tears. Basically everywhere. We lost a lot when song and dance was taken out of prayer and made it sit up straight on a bench. And we've stripped the sacred from everywhere and put a cloud man elsewhere. Not sure if I answered or not.Genesis.

Some religions do that, others not. Who are "we"?

Noted that in Christian teaching all of the earth is corrupt.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Divinity seen in the leaf. In our dance, song and tears. Basically everywhere. We lost a lot when song and dance was taken out of prayer and made it sit up straight on a bench. And we've stripped the sacred from everywhere and put a cloud man elsewhere. Not sure if I answered or not.

That's a good answer - and it seems compatible with Spinoza & Einstein's 'God-as-nature'.

 

[Astrid]

That's a good answer - and it seems compatible with Spinoza & Einstein's 'God-as-nature'.

Except maybe- why interposed a vision between yourself and nature?

Is it not seeing yourself, not what one proposes to see?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Except maybe- why interposed a vision between yourself and nature?

In Spinoza's view, there is nothing interposed - deterministic nature and its laws is God. It's not in any sense a cognitive entity like most traditional gods.

Is it not seeing yourself, not what one proposes to see?

Sorry, I can't make sense of that...

 

[Astrid]

In Spinoza's view, there is nothing interposed - deterministic nature and its laws is God. It's not in any sense a cognitive entity like most traditional gods.


Sorry, I can't make sense of that...

If there is no God other than in one's imagination, then seeing
"God" in everything is seeing your own self reflected in all about you.

Certainly a hindrance to perception.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If there is no God other than in one's imagination, then seeing
"God" in everything is seeing your own self reflected in all about you.

You make it sound like panpsychism, but it's not - it's really just saying nature is amazing and awe-inspiring enough to have an emotional or spiritual impact deserving of the label 'God'.

To me, the label seems unnecessary and guaranteed to cause confusion, but I think it expresses some people's response to the universe and all that's in it. I suspect for Spinoza, it was tied up with the religious background he'd abandoned; his way of rejecting the supernatural and declaring his own demonstrable, pragmatic, God: nature itself.

Certainly a hindrance to perception.

Why so? As long as one recognises it as a set of disinterested deterministic processes of which one is a part, I don't see why it would hinder perception.

 

[dlamberth]

Except maybe- why interposed a vision between yourself and nature?

Is it not seeing yourself, not what one proposes to see?

Which is how the mystics think.

 

[dlamberth]

You make it sound like panpsychism, but it's not - it's really just saying nature is amazing and awe-inspiring enough to have an emotional or spiritual impact deserving of the label 'God'.

To me, the label seems unnecessary and guaranteed to cause confusion, but I think it expresses some people's response to the universe and all that's in it. I suspect for Spinoza, it was tied up with the religious background he'd abandoned; his way of rejecting the supernatural and declaring his own demonstrable, pragmatic, God: nature itself.

Why so? As long as one recognises it as a set of disinterested deterministic processes of which one is a part, I don't see why it would hinder perception.

I go with the panpsychism and our Human consciousness ability to detect and be aware of consciousness in other life forms around us. Along the same road, with God being pure consciousness, what the mystics tells us is that it takes consciousness to be aware of consciousness/God. It seems that consciousness can take us beyond emotions and awe, or so the mystics would tell us.

 

[Astrid]

Which is how the mystics think.

Whatever a mystic is.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I go with the panpsychism and our Human consciousness ability to detect and be aware of consciousness in other life forms around us. Along the same road, with God being pure consciousness, what the mystics tells us is that it takes consciousness to be aware of consciousness/God. It seems that consciousness can take us beyond emotions and awe, or so the mystics would tell us.

Panpsychism is more than the existence of consciousness in other life forms, it's the idea that everything is a bit conscious... somehow.

Whatever mystics say, we're only aware of consciousness indirectly; mainly via behaviour. We have no direct access to other's subjective experience (hence, philosophical zombies). If we could detect consciousness directly, we'd know when locked-in patients were conscious, something we've only been able to achieve reliably fairly recently with brain monitoring instruments.

I don't know what 'pure consciousness' is supposed to mean - if it's anything like 'pure energy' it's just mystical waffle.

Have you any idea what mystics mean by consciousness being able to 'take us beyond emotions and awe'? Because if you do, I suspect they've failed to be mystical enough...

 

[dlamberth]

Whatever a mystic is.

It might be worth finding out. I had the same question at one time.

 

[dlamberth]

Panpsychism is more than the existence of consciousness in other life forms, it's the idea that everything is a bit conscious... somehow.

That sounds about right to me.

Whatever mystics say, we're only aware of consciousness indirectly; mainly via behaviour.

I understand that your not understanding the lens of consciousness that the mystics look through. That's all I see here.

I don't know what 'pure consciousness' is supposed to mean - if it's anything like 'pure energy' it's just mystical waffle.

Would perhaps the image of Buddhist Nirvana help with understanding?

[/quote]Have you any idea what mystics mean by consciousness being able to 'take us beyond emotions and awe'? Because if you do, I suspect they've failed to be mystical enough...[/QUOTE]
What would being "mystical enough" look like to you?