@indonesia-phil saidIt isn't me that is having issues with the word, evolving is simply changing over time, it doesn't have to mean from the beginning of life till now.
So you accept the fact of evolution, but only some of the fact of evolution. To use a simple analogy which you might be able to understand, that's like saying that you accept that some of the potatoes on your dinner plate are potatoes, but not all of the potatoes on your dinner plate are potatoes.
@kellyjay saidRuling out science.
Nature has no desires period, end of story, we agree. You still are not giving a single reason for mindlessness to be able to produce what is formed in biology due to the complexity guided by the informational instructions in it.
You have now ruled out nature and science. You have anything positive that shows mindlessness is able to do the necessary work?
Firstly, science can validate a statement or hypothesis only insofar as, under some conceivable circumstances, the statement or hypothesis could be falsified. This is one reason I dispute caissa's thread title, that science negates religion. Science can do no such thing; "religion" is not a statement or hypothesis; it is a value system. Moreover, the statement "God exists" cannot be falsified and therefore also not validated by any sort of scientific experiment or investigation.
Nonetheless, some statements which some religions make, if interpreted as if they were factual, can be falsified or negated. For example, the claim that the entire human race is descended from only two specimens; this is false, and we know this by virtue of laws of genetics.
This brings us to the next point:
Secondly: science subsumes whole classes of phenomena under very general laws (of physics, genetics, chemistry, probability, etc.). For example, science explains magnetism in general, but not how your notes stick to your refrigerator door at home; it explains jet propulsion in general, but not how you fly from Chicago to Miami, and so on. It is no fault of science that it does not explain particular instances or singular events; that is simply not its job.
The explanation of singular events is the subject of history (e.g., Caesar crossing the Rubicon) or of news reporting (e.g., the storming of the U.S. Capitol Bldg on Jan. 6th), and will necessarily speak of particular circumstances and motivations rather than general laws of nature.
I do not "rule out science"; I acknowledge that it has limits.
biology ... guided by the informational instructions in it.
Nature is not guided by anything, nor is there information in nature. These are anthropomorphisms, figures of speech, metaphors.
You have anything positive that shows mindlessness is able to do the necessary work?
I have posted pages and pages of positive analysis showing how what we observe can come about without the influence of a transcendental mind. You just don't want to see it as an explanation because it leaves out your preferred 'solution'.
@indonesia-phil saidI accept small changes in existing systems which are well established, if they are not well established and can not maintain themselves they quickly fall apart. The sudden appearance and ending of species does not lends itself to degrading over long periods of time.
So you accept the fact of evolution, but only some of the fact of evolution. To use a simple analogy which you might be able to understand, that's like saying that you accept that some of the potatoes on your dinner plate are potatoes, but not all of the potatoes on your dinner plate are potatoes.
@kellyjay saidYou keep asking for an explanation of something which isn’t there. You are like someone who believes the earth is the center of the universe and that everything revolves around us. So, when you observe the apparent motions of Mars and Jupiter, you think you see retrograde motions. And now you demand an explanation of retrograde motion. This is an illusion triggered by having the wrong reference point. The reality is that the Earth is not the center of the universe and that the other planets do not revolve around us. There are no retrograde motions, and therefore, no need to explain retrograde motions. There is no there there.
Nature has no desires period, end of story, we agree. You still are not giving a single reason for mindlessness to be able to produce what is formed in biology due to the complexity guided by the informational instructions in it.
You have now ruled out nature and science. You have anything positive that shows mindlessness is able to do the necessary work?
The same thing applies to evolution and the appearance of life forms on earth. You keep asking for an explanation where nature gets informational instructions. There is no information in nature, and therefore nothing to explain about it. Nature does not follow instructions, and therefore there is nothing to explain about where non-existent instructions came from.
@kellyjay said
It isn't me that is having issues with the word [evolution] , evolving is simply changing over time, it doesn't have to mean from the beginning of life till now.
Of course the word doesn't have to mean that; it has many uses in different fields. But in zoology it does mean that.
I accept small changes in existing systems which are well established, if they are not well established and can not maintain themselves they quickly fall apart. The sudden appearance and ending of species does not lends itself to degrading over long periods of time.
Yes, sometimes evolution means that a species degenerates; not every change is favorable to survival -- this simply means that a species becomes less well adapted to its environment.
If there had been a creation event wherein multitudes of life forms, both primitive and complex, appeared simultaneously, then we would see in the fossil record both primitive and complex life forms at all levels; we would see complex life forms, as well as simple ones, far back in the past, at very deep geological layers. This is not in fact what we see in the fossil record. What we in fact see in the fossil record is an unmistakeable stratification: go back in time from the present and eventually mammals disappear; go farther back in time and reptiles disappear; go farther back in time and oxygen breathers disappear, only plant life is evident; go farther back in time and no life on land is evident, only oceanic life, etc. This is clear evidence that primitive life forms appeared first (in the oceans), and complex ones came later (after plants had evolved and generated enough oxygen to support animal life on land).
The fact that primitive life forms are still around does not negate the idea of evolution from simple to complex, and is not evidence of a creation event. The continued existence of primitive life forms is explainable either of two ways: either these are very old life forms which are still well adapted to their environments (e.g., sponges, jellyfish), or they are new primitive life forms (We see new viruses all the time, for example). Evolution does not rule out the possibility of new primitive life forms appearing even now; evolution does not dictate that once complex ones appear, then only complex ones remain after that. Evolution does, however, propose that life does not start complex, and this agrees with massively coherent evidence.
@moonbus saidThe trouble with what you are saying is that at times science and religion run parallel with one another as statements and theories in science agree with religious text and beliefs, though often resisted when that occurs. Many prefer at any cost to keep them at odds with one another making their belief systems more comfortable.
Ruling out science.
Firstly, science can validate a statement or hypothesis only insofar as, under some conceivable circumstances, the statement or hypothesis could be falsified. This is one reason I dispute caissa's thread title, that science negates religion. Science can do no such thing; "religion" is not a statement or hypothesis; it is a value system. Mo ...[text shortened]... nd. You just don't want to see it as an explanation because it leaves out your preferred 'solution'.
Religion is not just a value system, as it touches on history as well as values, science does too if you believe you came from nothing then everyone's lives around are nowhere as valuable as if God made them. If you objectify someone for your viewing pleasure that is quite acceptable if they and you come from nothing, not according to scripture as Jesus points out even to look with lust is a sin. If you take the history of scripture as facts, then many questions about reality are answered. If people had taken the "beginning" as a fact, they would have looked for evidence for it long ago and not resisted it as much as they did and still do because it lines up with the truth of reality more so than a steady state or a universe coming from nothing.
Concerning not being able to falsify God, we have been arguing over that for several pages in different threads, the universe cannot start itself another cause that transcends it had to have created it.
The entire universe is evidence for God, as well as what we have been arguing over in life. This universe is understandable to us, it is put together with mathematical precision as well. Communication is a two-way street, we can see and understand the written code in life, we can look at and grasp the universe to the point we can take the things in it and do remarkable things like fly to the moon.
You ignore the laws as meaningful in genetics when it suits you, and when the issues that arise with them are brought out, off you go. If you are going to look at scripture and say bits and pieces of it don't work, while ignoring the whole, your complaints don't mean much. Laws are a funny thing, mindlessness, on the other hand, and repeatability doesn't walk hand in hand, yet you find it useful when it suits you.
Science has blind spots, agreed, and many of the great questions science has no way it can deal with them. Your inconsistency is amazing, nature is not guided by anything even though it acts law-like. You hold opposing views together at the same time as if both are true, but you pick and choose the view you like when it suits you and ignore and deny them when that suits you as well. Metaphors are representative of truths being spoken to make the point understandable. You took my spelling example and said nature does try to spell house as if that was what I meant, conveniently misapplied my examples. You are all over the place with laws, constraints, metaphors, and staying consistent.
@kellyjay saidMy point, in case you still don't get it, is that if you accept evolution as fact, which you now seem to do, you have to accept the whole of evolution, which means that you have to accept the billions of years that evolution has taken. If you accept evolution then your 'young earth' beliefs are absolutely invalid, and wrong. It is well established scientific fact that there was nothing alive on this earth for 500,000,000 years, give or take a few million, except single - celled life. That's five hundred million years, try to take that in if you can, try to imagine that kind of timescale. Now, thereafter, more complex arrangements of cells appear in the fossil record, and then more complex organisms, and so on, as the oxygenation of the earths' atmosphere allowed for it. Fast forward another 300,000,000 years or so, (another one to try to get your head around) and we have the Cambrian 'Explosion', which lasted several million years, and which saw the evolution of species crack on at a rare old rate. Eventually, to cut a very long story short, came the age of the dinosaurs, and then the age of mammals, so eventually we have apes, and then hominids, and then you and me. The chances of anything becoming fossilized and then being found in its' fossilized state are vanishingly small, so of course there are gaps in the fossil record, no reasonable person would expect anything else, nevertheless we have evidence for the above coming out of our ears, we can't move for verifiable, scientific evidence that this is what happened. Furthermore, we now have the science of genetics, which has revolutionized our understanding of how life has evolved, and how all life is connected. You share common ancestry with the next cow that you will roast and eat, and the potatoes (it's those potatoes again... ) that you will eat with it.
It isn't me that is having issues with the word, evolving is simply changing over time, it doesn't have to mean from the beginning of life till now.
Yes, evolution is 'simply changing over time', that's what evolution is, and yes, it does have to mean from the beginning of life until now, otherwise where does evolution start and end????? If you accept evolution, then that is what you also have to accept, there is no other way. More than 99% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct, nothing lasts forever, our own species included, and nature doesn't give a gnats' kneecap; we are part of a process, nothing more or less than that, and the process will continue. No 'error checking', nature is up to it's neck in errors, which is one of the factors which drives evolution; no conscious actions, no reason, no point, and all of this is I find so much more inspiring than nonsensical mythology about Gardens of Eden, talking snakes, and all the rest of the 'scriptures', written before people had a clue as to what has actually been going on for the last few billion years. Our knowledge of the world has evolved a lot since then, and will continue to do so as our quest for ever greater understanding continues, and therein lies the future.
@indonesia-phil saidBS, as it relates to "change" I can accept it, but that doesn't mean as it relates to zoology in biology from a single lifeform being the common ancestor of all life! They are not the same thing even though the same word is used in both.
My point, in case you still don't get it, is that if you accept evolution as fact, which you now seem to do, you have to accept the whole of evolution, which means that you have to accept the billions of years that evolution has taken. If you accept evolution then your 'young earth' beliefs are absolutely invalid, and wrong. It is well established scientific fact that ...[text shortened]... ontinue to do so as our quest for ever greater understanding continues, and therein lies the future.
You just swallow hook line and sinker all the stuff being pushed off as factual, when they are nothing of the kind. The things we can look at in the here and now disputes the things suggest that occurred in the distant past, and yet, evolution did it we don't know how we only know it did. Telling me a story about what you think occurred 300,000,000 carries no weight against the things we see in the here and now when you cannot get from A to B as we examine what is before us now.
It isn't only the fossil record it is the life around us today that you do not see small changes giving us a string of life that looks like one another in every species. The process should be ongoing, instead, we see distinct life from one another in a variety of forms many of which have similar features like eyes but formed in very unique designs from one another, warm-blooded, cold-blooded, aquatic, flying creatures, those that live in the earth's soil and livestock. If you think it reasonable mindlessness could or would accomplish such a thing, your judgment is flawed.
@kellyjay saidYou make the same mistake over and over, in both science and religion: you take everything literally. There was no talking snake; it's an allegory. The DNA in a cell is not information which instructs a cell how to make a duplicate of itself; this is a metaphor.
The trouble with what you are saying is that at times science and religion run parallel with one another as statements and theories in science agree with religious text and beliefs, though often resisted when that occurs. Many prefer at any cost to keep them at odds with one another making their belief systems more comfortable.
Religion is not just a value system, as it ...[text shortened]... my examples. You are all over the place with laws, constraints, metaphors, and staying consistent.
Yes, there is sometimes overlap between science and religion and history. Yes, there really is a place called Jerusalem and yes there really was a temple where the Jews really sacrificed their live animals on an altar. Archeology (science) has confirmed this bit of the religious texts.
@moonbus saidIn the beginning God spoke and out of nothing everything came to be, then spiritual beings are part of reality making talking snakes a possibility being influenced by some spiritual being, so not out of the realm of possibilities. Neither would be the mystery surrounding the fine tuning of the universe, that our brains can understand and comprehend it, or that what we see in life by its instructions guiding everything with law like precision makes sense.
You make the same mistake over and over, in both science and religion: you take everything literally. There was no talking snake; it's an allegory. The DNA in a cell is not information which instructs a cell how to make a duplicate of itself; this is a metaphor.
Yes, there is sometimes overlap between science and religion and history. Yes, there ...[text shortened]... their live animals on an altar. Archeology (science) has confirmed this bit of the religious texts.
On the other hand removing God so that no one is running the show, the only thing that is, is the material world you can not account for conciseness, information guiding processes, absolutes, why we should trust our minds, why anyone should value anything outside of self-interest, the vacuum is tremendous looking for some relative truth to fill in for a required absolute!
@kellyjay saidIt's you who desperately wants an absolute. There is no requirement for one.
In the beginning God spoke and out of nothing everything came to be, then spiritual beings are part of reality making talking snakes a possibility being influenced by some spiritual being, so not out of the realm of possibilities. Neither would be the mystery surrounding the fine tuning of the universe, that our brains can understand and comprehend it, or that what we see in ...[text shortened]... terest, the vacuum is tremendous looking for some relative truth to fill in for a required absolute!
@kellyjay saidWhat on earth are you on about now? Perhaps if you re - write this in comprehendible English, it might be worth responding to, as it stands it reads like a load of gibberish, born out of desperation to say something, anything, to counter that which is blindingly obvious to anyone in possession of a rational, logical thought process. Calm down and try again.
BS, as it relates to "change" I can accept it, but that doesn't mean as it relates to zoology in biology from a single lifeform being the common ancestor of all life! They are not the same thing even though the same word is used in both.
You just swallow hook line and sinker all the stuff being pushed off as factual, when they are nothing of the kind. The things we can l ...[text shortened]... ou think it reasonable mindlessness could or would accomplish such a thing, your judgment is flawed.