Evolution v. Creationism

[ding]

Our "appreciation" of these laws does not make them in any way more special than anything else around us.

I am unsure of how a universe could exist in which a thing is not what it is. If the tautologies don't hold then nothing holds.

You have no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves. If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? Matter from mind is the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You agree that life and intelligence arose naturally according to the laws of nature, do you not? I win right there.

If that is your point then indeed I agree.

Life - and thus intelligence - couldn't have arisen if any number things were slightly different.

Absolutely 100% wrong. Life doesn't have to be life like you currently know it.

or the mass of the electron relative to the mass of the nucleus or the distance of the electron to the nucleus were different or if water acted like everything else and continued contracting as it froze. If any number of things were slightly different the universe could have been created in exactly the same way yet the universe would be devoid of life.

The flaw in this "Fine Tuned" argument is that it suffers from a certain chauvanism toward OUR understanding of what life is. If electrons and protons' charges were different such that atoms are not stable then nothing would exist.

This is pure unadulterated hypothetical musings.

 

[Woodznutz]

God created evolution.

God created strong delusion.

I don’t presume one or more gods.

The planet is very old. We have no evidence of supernaturalism. Those are material facts.

Contrasted against a barren, lifeless universe, the earth is quite super natural.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

What is mathematics if not mind stuff? You lose again.

Do you honestly think that the proposition that "A thing is what it is and not some other thing" is a "mind stuff" thing? It's central tenant that would be true with or without any minds being around.

If there were no intelligence in the universe a thing would still be what it is.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You have no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves. If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? Matter from mind is the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious.

1+1=2 is real regardless of if there is a mind to perceive it or not.

 

[Woodznutz]

Agree. A collection of allegory and fable, written by many authors over many decades and reflects a period in time when life was harsh and the ebb and flow of life was dictated by events and forces little understood at the time so various gods and demons, most of which were passed down from earlier times, were the causes of existence.

The bible is basically the history of and prophecies concerning the nation of Israel.

 

[ding]

That's not valuable information.



But it isn't anything more than people musing on stuff. Sounds like the thoughts one has after a couple of edibles.

Don't get me wrong, one of my closest friends from high school is a philosophy prof and obviously there's a lot of such musings. But speaking as a philosophical realist (with the full understanding that our perception of reality is filtered and processed by our brains) I lack a belief that reality is just "entirely abstract". I think of science as an attempt to get at the truth knowing it will only ever be an approximation, but that approximation belies an actual independent reality.

What we perceive as reality is a product of consciousness. The behavior of sub atomic particles - for that matter all particles and objects - is inextricably linked to the presence of a conscious observer. Without a conscious observer they exist in an undetermined state of probability waves. Without consciousness matter dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe preceding consciousness only existed in a probability state. The universe is explainable only through consciousness. The universe is finely tuned to support consciousness because consciousness created the universe, not the other way around.

So the statement, "from a scientific view everything is made manifest by mind" is extremely valuable as it was primarily physicists who have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind.

 

[ding]

1+1=2 is real regardless of if there is a mind to perceive it or not.

What part of everything is made manifest by mind do you not understand? It's the presence of mind which makes everything manifest. Which is how I know mind is the source or matrix of the physical world. That and a number of other things.

 

[Hollie]

God created strong delusion.

Contrasted against a barren, lifeless universe, the earth is quite super natural.

We don't know that the universe is lifeless.

Claims to anything supernatural about earth would suggest you make a supportable case for supernatural creators.

Let's see the evidence for your supernatural creators.

 

[Hollie]

The bible is basically the history of and prophecies concerning the nation of Israel.

Others make claims that conflict with yours.

Why are their claims correct and yours are not?

 

[Woodznutz]

For those who have trouble with reading comprehension, this thread is not about rehashing Evolution/Creationism. There are already 15 threads in Science & Technology and Religion & Ethics forums doing that.

This is a simple question. Why does the argument exist? Why does it matter?

The ToE at its root is an attack on creation, thus the creator.

Why do you think folks living in the Kingdom of Judah in the 9th Century BC should have believed the Earth was 4.6 billion years old? ... we didn't know the Earth was round until the 5th Century BC ...

Exact how many scientific truths should we expect from the oral tradition we received from antiquity? ... stories passed father to son for 45,000 years ... told around camp fires while the wimin folk tended the babies ...

Phaw ... a good argument can be made that the Bible is political spin ... we have evidence of Judah, but nothing of Israel ... much like Hitler invading Czechoslovakia, Putin invading The Ukraine, the United States invading Haiti, El Salvador, Honduras, Chile, Panama, Grenada, Guatemala, Cuba, Afghanistan, Iraq (twice), Guam, etc etc etc ... there's a narrative that allows for territorial conquest ... "It was ours from the beginning, the Bible says so" ...

Who do think the WASP countries are?

 

[Woodznutz]

We don't know that the universe is lifeless.

Claims to anything supernatural about earth would suggest you make a supportable case for supernatural creators.

Let's see the evidence for your supernatural creators.

Does science have a theory or hypothesis about extraterrestrial life?

Someone or something had to create stuff that was created.

 

[Woodznutz]

Politician lie daily like a Preacher that tend too his flock…

Lucifer is a myth created by humanity to scare children with so they wouldn’t follow the dark path in life.

Is the story needed in life lessons?

Yes, but Lucifer is just a fairytale in my personal opinion and the real evil is in the hearts of humanity…

The bible explains things that are otherwise unexplainable. It's called "revelation".

 

[ding]

Absolutely 100% wrong. Life doesn't have to be life like you currently know it.

You don't know what you are talking about.

If the protons and neutrons were closer in mass to the electrons, whether light or heavy, then the motions of the electrons would be reflected in reciprocal motions by the others. All structures composed of such atoms would be fluid; in such a universe nothing would stay put. There could not be the fitting together of molecular shapes that permits not only crystals to form, but living organisms. The universe could have been created exactly the same way but it would be devoid of life.

If there was any difference in electric charge between electrons and protons it would be enough to overwhelm the forces of gravitation that bring matter together; and so we should have no planets, no stars, no galaxies, no life and no intelligence but the universe could have been created exactly the same way but it would be devoid of life.

Do you want me to go on or you going to be making a ridiculous argument that life doesn't have to be carbon based?

 

[Woodznutz]

I don't disagree about 'belief' requiring no evidence. I will point out however that competing belief systems have caused civilizations to clash and wars waged as those belief systems have sought to "prove'" the efficacy of their respective gods.

Science does not operate on "belief". And, I'll point out that irrefutable evidence is not a part of science knowledge. It is a process of discovery that flexes as new data is confirmed and meets the rigors of the Scientific Method.

I can't help but notice the attacks on science we see in here in so many forums are from the more excitable religious types. They know with absolute certainty that "belief" is not an attribute for their religious views as their gods are real and extant and the reason and rationality that drives science is to be met with fear and loathing.

Behind the scenes evolutionists are frantically trying to fill the holes in the theory. That's why they only deal in 'macro' changes. They are scared spitless to look any deeper.

 

[ding]

The flaw in this "Fine Tuned" argument is that it suffers from a certain chauvanism toward OUR understanding of what life is. If electrons and protons' charges were different such that atoms are not stable then nothing would exist.

This is pure unadulterated hypothetical musings.

Life and intelligence exists precisely because the laws of nature are so finely tuned for it. Physicists consider a life filled universe to be an unnatural universe as in it shouldn't exist. That's how finely tuned the laws of nature are.

 

[Woodznutz]

I would disagree in the sense that, (per the thread topic), the difference between evolution vs. creationism is that evolution is evidence based. The evidence drives the conclusions. I see nothing in science that seeks to disprove god or gods. On the other hand, seeking evidence of God's work undermines faith. If one is questioning their faith, it is sometimes considered that they are also losing their faith, not strengthening it

Au contraire. Observing the creation strengthens faith. Belief in the creative power of God is intrinsic to Christian faith.

 

[Hollie]

Does science have a theory or hypothesis about extraterrestrial life?

Someone or something had to create stuff that was created.

What stuff was created?

 

[Hollie]

Au contraire. Observing the creation strengthens faith.

What creation? Claims to supernaturalism mean it falls to you to make a meaningful argument for a supernatural creator capable of doing supernatural things.

 

[ding]

Do you honestly think that the proposition that "A thing is what it is and not some other thing" is a "mind stuff" thing? It's central tenant that would be true with or without any minds being around.

If there were no intelligence in the universe a thing would still be what it is.

Intelligence created the universe. Everything is made manifest by mind. How else do you believe the universe was created from nothing?