1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. We are holding our 2022 Angel Ministry Drive now. Please consider signing up, or if you have any questions about being an Angel, use our staff application form. The world needs more prayer now, and it is a great way to help other members of the forums. :) To Apply...click here

Human Evolution

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by doubtingmerle, Jul 18, 2022.

  1. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +1,623
    Humanist
    Private
    The 'laws of nature' were distilled by humans describing everyday perceptions. They are models. 'Nature' doesn't go to some mythical galactic laws written on a tablet floating around in space someplace and consult with some alien lawyer, so it can 'follow' or 'obey' them, y'know.
    The notion that reality, the laws of nature and things that truly exist independently from all human minds, is a pure belief.

    You, nor anyone else I've ever encountered, can even come close to citing the objective test independent from any human mind whatsoever, that would lead to such a conclusion. It is thus a belief.
    I haven't said any of that .. that's all just your misconceptions of how science approaches that topic.
    What can be demonstrated from objective test results, is that what we mean by 'reality' or 'exists', whenerever we use those terms, comes about by either of two ways: by belief or by the scientific method.

    Try this on:

    Me: Please tell me something you regard as physically real (ie: existing);
    Person#1: The Empire State building, (etc.)

    Me: Ok .. so the Empire State building is something you are sure exists independently of human minds?
    Person#1: Yes.

    Me: And why are you sure it exists?
    Person#1: For reasons X, Y, and Z.

    Me: So those reasons convince you that you are sure?
    Person#1: Yes.

    Me: Those are the parts that aren't independent of your (human) mind.
    (And yet somehow, the Empire State building is? o_O )
     
  2. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +42,787
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Even if it takes a rigged vote at times.
    Sometimes after the fact -- when it's too late.

    Would you like to see an "after-the-fact-when-it-was-too-late" reality picture that scientists were responsible for?
     
  3. Aussie Pete

    Aussie Pete Well-Known Member Supporter

    +7,442
    Australia
    Non-Denom
    Divorced
    Tell that to the woke, progressive transgender crowd.
     
  4. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +42,787
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Science will back them up and give them all the excuses they need to continue in that lifestyle.
     
  5. expos4ever

    expos4ever Well-Known Member

    +5,275
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    How is this relevant to my correcting the erroneous assertion that evolution is "completely random"?
     
  6. expos4ever

    expos4ever Well-Known Member

    +5,275
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    How does the fact of evolution connect to matters of lifestyle in any way?
     
  7. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +42,787
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Ask your genes.

    Academia claims you're born that way -- (or used to).
     
  8. expos4ever

    expos4ever Well-Known Member

    +5,275
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    This is not really much of an answer. Yes, I suppose genes nudge us in certain ways, but we can override them. For example, people can and do choose to remain childless for a wide range of legitimate reasons. You are, with no evidence, suggesting that "biology equals destiny".
     
  9. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +42,787
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Do you disagree that a person can appeal to science to justify his lifestyle?
    What about those who choose not to override them?

    Will science back them up or not?
     
  10. Mark Quayle

    Mark Quayle Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,230
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    Let me be more specific. It is not because I define him any certain way, that he is what he is. Nevertheless, he necessarily is first cause, self-existent, omnipotent, creator of all that is not him, and all the things that necessarily follow from those. If he is not, then he is not God, and I cannot accept that he is. Simple
     
  11. Mark Quayle

    Mark Quayle Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,230
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    You are repeating yourself again.

    You may as well just say that a logically self-contradictory thing is impossible, as to go through all these changes. It doesn't apply to God, so why bother to say he can't? It does not limit God. He has no interest in doing such things! Life and truth is not about your point of view of it. (Ask Ayn Rand.) ;)

    see above

    God is just how it is. He is not a subset of anything else. Anything else besides him is a result of his causation. Therefore no conjecture can limit him. Is it really that hard to grasp?

    I use the term, "invent", to convey the idea of hierarchy. I don't really know of a word that would be sufficient to cover the idea I want to, nor does my idea of it do the job either. God has made things that are of his own nature. But you imagine that his nature is subject to the things (including logic and reality) he has created. You have it backwards, if he is first cause.

    I'm not saying that our (my) descriptions are accurate; they are ignorant, my mind can't do this job. But when it comes to raw fact, God is the default, all else is secondary.
     
  12. Mark Quayle

    Mark Quayle Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,230
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    And so on we go. I have adamantly rejected the notion that anything can limit God. It is particularly ridiculous that logically self-contradictory humanly derived notions can limit God. They don't even limit us! We may be bound by the logically possible, but not by the logically impossible. It doesn't even exist!

    But God is the default fact. Even logic and reality are from him, not TO him, in the same way. He is not subject to them. He is no doubt totally logical and real, but they do not define him, but he defines them.

    So no. I have not said repeatedly that God cannot do things that are self-contradictory. I have not said that there are things that limit God. The 'things' you list are nonsense, bogus human constructions of nothing. Words turned on themselves. God is not limited, unless by his own being. He is certainly not limited by our foolishness.
     
  13. Mark Quayle

    Mark Quayle Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,230
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    Instinctively, because it doesn't make sense.

    But by reason, because there are only two kinds of things —those with intent, and mechanical fact. A mechanical fact, such as the Universe itself, does not come into being without cause. Nor can it be eternally self-existent as it depends on principles from outside itself to control its changes. (A computer follows a program).

    Also, by reason, the fact that 'changing things' (becoming) demands 'something eternal' (that doesn't become). I don't remember if you watched the video linked in the OP of the thread, Philosophy: First Cause is. Everything else is becoming
    I tried to do a synopsis of it in post #8 but it doesn't really do the video justice. It deals with this.


    Can you describe this sum total that is not just mechanical fact?

    Not at all. You continue with this nonsense. Why would God want to make 2+2=53,567 ? Again, you propose a bogus construct, and pretend it limits first cause. Really?
     
  14. Mark Quayle

    Mark Quayle Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,230
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    What we think is irrelevant to what a real thing is. What makes you think "[what we are] supposed to think" has anything to do with it?

    I specifically, deliberately us our concepts and language to tell us all I can of what is and isn't real, because I have no other way to convey a concept. But, again, how does that govern the reality of anything?
     
  15. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +1,623
    Humanist
    Private
    The idea is that everything, once perceived and described using language, becomes a model. There are two main types of models: beliefs and testables. The testable ones can become real .. beliefs don't.
     
  16. Astrophile

    Astrophile Newbie

    +1,370
    United Kingdom
    Atheist
    Widowed
    SN 1987A is in the Large Magellanic Cloud, which is part of the Local Group of galaxies, which is not expanding. The expansion of the universe does not affect the measurement of the distances of nearby galaxies, or even of relatively nearby clusters of galaxies, such as the Virgo cluster (about 55 million light-years away).
     
  17. Shemjaza

    Shemjaza Regular Member Supporter

    +3,499
    Australia
    Atheist
    Single
    AU-Greens
    The gravity of the Local Group is predicted to overcome expansion... in the long term, is the Virgo cluster going to be separated?
     
  18. Astrophile

    Astrophile Newbie

    +1,370
    United Kingdom
    Atheist
    Widowed
    Yes, in the long term the Local Group will separate from the Virgo cluster, although the Virgo cluster itself may stay together.

    However, it will take a very long time for the distance of the Virgo cluster to increase significantly. The average radial velocity of the Virgo cluster is about 1170 km/s, so in 55 million years (the time taken for light to reach us from the cluster) its distance will have increased by about 70,000 parsecs, or about 210,000 light-years. This is less than 0.5% of the present distance of the cluster. That is what I mean when I say that the expansion of the universe does not affect measurements of the distance of nearby clusters of galaxies.
     
  19. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +2,190
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Looking back at this again, yes, this answer is substantially different from mine. The difference is that I answered. You did not answer. So no, I cannot compare my answer with your evasion of the question.

    Once again, here are the questions you were responding to.

    • How did the universe begin? There was a Big Bang.
    • How did the Big Bang happen? Probably there was cosmic inflation and quantum effects.
    • How did cosmic inflation and quantum effects come about? I don't know. There is some explanation, though.
    • How did that explanation for inflation come into existence? I don't know. If you keep drilling down, ultimately, we come to an explanation at the root of it all. That explanation could be an infinite series, multiple circular series, an uncaused eternal base reality, an eternal being with a mind, or simply the fact that something sometimes comes out of what we call nothing.
    Now, I would like you to answer, beginning with how the universe began. When you get to the bottom, is your answer substantially different from mine?​

    You didn't even get to first base. You didn't tell us if you thought the universe began with the Big Bang. I tried several follow ups. What do you think caused the universe? I see nothing but evasions.


    When I explained my view you respond like this:

    Which is not very enlightening. If you have something to say about how the universe began, then say it. But if you have nothing to say, then don't go rolling in the floor laughing at those who are trying to address this issue.

    In the post you were replying to, I was trying to go beyond the Big Bang to discuss the reason for quantum mechanics and cosmic inflation. And that goes deep into the weeds, where nobody really knows.

    You won't even state an opinion on the Big Bang, let alone, the reason for quantum mechanics and cosmic inflation existing.

    So I don't think you can laugh at my answer on the reason for the Big Bang, if you refuse to even speculate on whether there was a Big Bang.
     
  20. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +2,190
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    The laws of nature always existed in nature. They applied long before humans existed.


    Straw man. Nobody said nature follows tablets floating in space.

    Nature follows neither tablets floating in space nor the laws of people. Nature does what the forces of nature cause it to do.

    When we human write down laws of nature, all we are doing is describing how it works.

    No sir, there is abundant evidence that particles all over the universe are following the laws of nature, and they are doing it independently of all human minds.

    Look through a telescope. See stars? The light from many stars left those stars long before the first human existed. And when we look at the starlight that comes to us, we find it was caused by ordinary physical processes just like on earth. There was nobody around to observe it when it happened. But it happened anyway, and followed the same laws of nature we know today.



    No sir, neither belief nor the scientific method can make reality "come about".
     
Loading...