Hi, I'm taking a Philosophy class.....

[Randall McNally]

So you admit that the amount of salt contradicts billions of years? If it gives ages like a few hundred years, they are much easily understood with YEC than ToE.

That's an example of missing context. Lead salts are not indicative of earth age, but only for the age of the process that produces lead salts.

 

[Jet Black]

So you admit that the amount of salt contradicts billions of years? If it gives ages like a few hundred years, they are much easily understood with YEC than ToE.

The ages calculated by Morris only show the average residence times of the various salts in the ocean, and not the total accumulation times. If we look at influx rates and removal rates, you find that all the elements are in approximate equilibrium.

http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199606/0051.html

 

[reconciliation]

That's an example of missing context. Lead salts are not indicative of earth age, but only for the age of the process that produces lead salts.

But it would be very improbable that the process would have begun only a few centuries ago if the Earth (and sea) was billions of years old. That way we can use the amount of salts as a method to estimate the age of sea and also the Earth.

 

[Randall McNally]

But it would be very improbable that the process would have begun only a few centuries ago if the Earth (and sea) was billions of years old.

How do you calculate this probability?

That way we can use the amount of salts as a method to estimate the age of sea and also the Earth.

Read Jet Black's link above.

 

[IceLady]

Here is a cool fact that I heard. In a lab somewhere, there are scientists that are shooting atoms at each other, seeing what smaller particles make up the atom.

Enormous oversimplification, but somewhat correct.

They have found that every atom is made up of Nuetrons, Protons and Electrons. Each of these are made up of a smaller particle (man, I forget what they are called).

It's neutrons, protons and electrons. Electrons are leptons, and leptons cannot be broken down to smaller particles. So, electron is not dividable.

Proton and neutron, on the other hand, are baryons and are made up of three quarks that are held together by a strong force, aka gluons.

After that, the only thing they found was light, and we know that light is made up of sound.

Whoa! Light is made up of photons, another small and non-dividable particles which are not part of neutron or proton structure.

Sound, on the other hand, is not a particle, but a disturbance of particles. Sound cannot exist in vacuum due to the fact that there are no particles. On the other hand, space is as close to a vacuum as it can get and yet we see the Sun and other stars' light (photons). The two are not the same. Not even close. Sound is not a particle, for starters.

Nobody yet can say (I have yet to hear) what sound is made up of.

It's not really made of anything. It's a disturbance that propagates through a bunch of particles. Closer definition would say that it's a disturbance whose frequencies are between 20-20000Hz, because anything under and over it is called infrasound and ultrasound, respectively.

God spoke, and there was light, and then everything else. Sound is the power of creation.

No, sound is a mechanical energy propagating through matter. There's no creation by sound since sound is non existent without matter. It's funny though, that from all the things, you had to choose the one (would say "only" but that's probably not true, and blame the fact that I'm sleepy for not being able to think of anything else at the moment) that is incapable of existing without matter.

I guess that just shows the quality of your schooling, but I ain't goin' into that.

 

[OdwinOddball]

I don't think you're going to get many replies at this late date...

 

[Eudaimonist]

1. My teacher told us that the definition of Evolution is that every living thing has the same genetic code for building amino acids, therefore there is a common cause. Is this the right definition?

No, it isn't. While it is true that all living things have DNA, and this suggests common ancestry, this isn't the definition of Evolution.

A better one is:

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

The process in question is natural selection.

She says that everyone agrees on evolution, and tis impossible to deny it, but that what people disagree on is natural selection. Is this true?

No. I've never heard of this.

2. How is it possible to believe in Evolution and God?

God creates Universe through magic. Universe creates life through natural processes.

I looked up evolution online and it doesn't sound like the same definition she gave us in class, I walked up to her before class started and quietly (no one heard me) told her this, and she freaked out and verbally attacked me in front of everyone. She didn't like me saying that her definition might be different form the ones I find from authoritative sources.

She's a misinformed teacher, then.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[artybloke]

God creates Universe through magic. Universe creates life through natural processes.

Why can't God create through natural processes then?

 

[LittleNipper]

Fortunately, the vast majority of Christianity disagrees.

Why is this fortunate? I don't note that Christians who are Evolutionits are BETTER Christians for being Evolutionists. In fact Evolutionists seem as a whole to be less skeptical of their OWN understanding and LESS considerate of GOD's ability to express HIMSELF.

 

[LittleNipper]

Why can't God create through natural processes then?

Why can't Satan trick and fool through natural processes?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

The "light is sound" post got featured on FSDT today. I guess that explains the threadomancy.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Why can't Satan trick and fool through natural processes?

from descartes demon, to the movie "The Matrix" to the original StarTrek series, people have considered "the brains in a vat" question. imho, it has no solution. You assume one answer or the other and work from there.
but i'd propose, in a universe created by anyone but a coyote trickster god or an evil demiurge, that the answer "ought" to be that the world is real and is not really "out to get us", and that to think that it is, is simply not mentally healthy, even if it is conceivable philosophically.

 

[Abongil]

But it would be very improbable that the process would have begun only a few centuries ago if the Earth (and sea) was billions of years old. That way we can use the amount of salts as a method to estimate the age of sea and also the Earth.

Except salts occur all the time in nature. In fact, all a salt is is an ionic compound composed of cations and anions. Pretty much whenever you combine an acid with a base, you get salt and water.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Why can't God create through natural processes then?

I was answering how one could believe in both Evolution and God without contradiction. This is a way of approaching the issue that involves the least modification of Evolution theory, since there is never any supernatural intervention except at the creation of the Universe. In a way, God would be creating through natural processes, but only indirectly.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[PKJ]

Here is a cool fact that I heard. In a lab somewhere, there are scientists that are shooting atoms at each other, seeing what smaller particles make up the atom. They have found that every atom is made up of Nuetrons, Protons and Electrons. Each of these are made up of a smaller particle (man, I forget what they are called). After that, the only thing they found was light, and we know that light is made up of sound. Nobody yet can say (I have yet to hear) what sound is made up of.

God spoke, and there was light, and then everything else. Sound is the power of creation.

What we call sound is in fact a cyclic pressure change (usually in air) that is transmitted to your ears. That's what it is.

Light is not made of sound.

Edit: Oh yeah, that was answered to 100 times.

 

[mark kennedy]

Hi, this forum is always kind of intimidating so I never came in before, but I have a couple of questions. I am taking a university level Philosophy class and we are going over arguments for and against God. Okay, here are my questions...

1. My teacher told us that the definition of Evolution is that every living thing has the same genetic code for building amino acids, therefore there is a common cause. Is this the right definition? She says that everyone agrees on evolution, and its impossible to deny it, but that what people disagree on is natural selection. Is this true?

I would have told her she failed to define her central term, evolution itself. The scientific definition is 'the change of alleles in populations over time'. Then I would ask her if she knew the difference between an a priori assumption and a scientific/philosophical definition. Of course she does.

Then I would tell her that a single common ancestor is an a priori assumption not a scientific conclusion. It's a lot of fun, try challenging her on her definition of evolution but remember not to tell her the scientific one until she gives you hers

2. How is it possible to believe in Evolution and God?

Of course it is as long as alleles in populations change over time evolution exists. As long as God's glory is revealed in nature and expressed in tangable comprehensive ways God will not go into nonexistence. You have there a false dilemma, when you have an accurate and scientific definition for the central term the problem disappears.

3. How is it possible to believe in Evolution, Natural Selection and God?

Because you are talking about three very different concepts, each with their own academic and intellectual contexts. Take them one at a time because my guess is that your philosophy professor is defining words without telling you what she means by them. The rules of philosophy are that terms must have clear definitions, challenge the definition and the problems disappear.

She is no doubt talking about Darwin's argument against special creation when she says 'natural selection'. If she wants to admit that then you can separate the science from the supposition and the argument will take care of itself.

I looked up evolution online and it doesn't sound like the same definition she gave us in class, I walked up to her before class started and quietly (no one heard me) told her this, and she freaked out and verbally attacked me in front of everyone. She didn't like me saying that her definition might be different form the ones I find from authoritative sources.

Of course she doesn't, no one likes having their cherished assumptions challenged. Ask her if evolution can be defined as the change of alleles in populations over time. If she says yes then it's simply a matter of separating the science from the supposition. If she says no then she is not using a scientific definition plain and simple. If she attacks you personally then it's an Ad Hominem fallacy, easily refuted logically.

I'd appreciate anyone and everyone responding to this thread. I am just trying to understand things, and incorporate all of this into my beliefs somehow?

Thank you so much ,

Steffani

EDIT: Oh, and is it possible to still believe that the world was really created in 7 days?

The life sciences are not in conflict with the creationism in any way shape or form. Atheists think they can monopolise the sciences by defining sciences as without God. That defines an atheistic/agnostic worldview not the genuine article of science as it is properly applied to nature.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Psudopod]

Then I would tell her that a single common ancestor is an a priori assumption not a scientific conclusion.

How is common ancestry an apriory assumption? What system requires this as a starting point. Common ancestory is a conclusion derived from the evidence.

Atheists think they can monopolise the sciences by defining sciences as without God.

Science cannot comment on God, the supernatual, the metaphysical etc. You will find athiests, agnostics and theist agreeing on this. You cannot usefully squeeze God into a science equation.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Then I would tell her that a single common ancestor is an a priori assumption not a scientific conclusion.

How is common ancestry an apriory assumption? What system requires this as a starting point. Common ancestory is a conclusion derived from the evidence.

not only is it NOT an assumption but a conclusion from the data, it is not even essential to the framework of the TofE. if tomorrow the hot vent creatures were found to have a very different genetic code and for all practical purposes completely evolved separately from life on earth it would not effect the framework of the TofE the least little bit. Life could have a dozen early starts, it would challenge only the idea of common descent from a single point. so what?

this is very persuasive that the idea of common descent is not an assumption necessary for doing the science but a conclusion from the data, it can be disputed and overturned without real changes to the logical structure of the general theory.

i sure wish YECists could either define an a priori assumption or present one for discussion. everything i have seen claimed as an assumption in in fact a conclusion.......

perhaps, YECists, consistently skipped philo101:intro to logic class?

 

[mark kennedy]

not only is it NOT an assumption but a conclusion from the data, it is not even essential to the framework of the TofE.

It is clearly an a priori assumption since it does not allow for alternatives, it includes all lineage and spans the history of all living systems. That could not be the result of exaustive research, it is assumed with extreme prejudice.

i sure wish YECists could either define an a priori assumption or present one for discussion. everything i have seen claimed as an assumption in in fact a conclusion.......

perhaps, YECists, consistently skipped philo101:intro to logic class?

I sure wish TEs were good for anything other then contradicting Creationists. It disturbs me to see the zeal of TEs in defending the spirit of the age with the modernist profession of Christian conviction. Not a single identifiable tenant of Christian theism marks itself as distict in TE arguments. They are universally opposed to creationism and that is about it.

TE is an empty theology having no bearing on Biblical Christianity. Shrouded in ambiquity it is not discernably different then atheistic materialism in either it's logic or reasoning.

I'll tell you what though, define God and I'll define an a priori assumption. Let me guess, you have some vauge, nebulas rationalization that begins with contradicting creationist arguments and ends with a yawn.

 

[mark kennedy]

How is common ancestry an apriory assumption?

First of all it is a self-evident fact with a self-referential starting point being identical to the conclusion. It isn't even a genuine a priori assumption since it can't make a priori predictions. It is circular logic that relies on the dogma of secular clerics and wrong laws of demonstration.

What system requires this as a starting point.

Darwinism

Common ancestory is a conclusion derived from the evidence.

No it's not and it's neither scientific or logically inferred from empirical evidence. It has none of the marks of a scientific theory, none of the requiste causative questions associated with a testable hypothesis. It does not even qualify as an educated guess, it's a modern myth.

Science cannot comment on God, the supernatual, the metaphysical etc. You will find athiests, agnostics and theist agreeing on this. You cannot usefully squeeze God into a science equation.

So the assumption is that the aseity (utter independance) of God puts God beyond any scientific investigation. That is absolutly true but does not warrant the catagorical rejection of special creation since it can be logically deduced from empirical evidence.

The single common ancestor is a substantive element that transcends natural history. That makes it by it's very character a metaphysical axiom with no bearing of legitimate science as you have characterized it.

Evolution as science is the change of alleles in populations over time. Evolution as metaphysics is the single common ancestor and I am repulsed that these pseudo-scientific arguments cannot discern that distinction.