|
|
05-21-2022, 10:01 AM
|
#8386
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,887
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Actor
I disagree with your thesis that evolution relies on time + chance for anything to exist. It implies that anything that exists must have come into existence. But the data seems to suggest that everything has always existed, albeit in a different form. Go far enough back in time and the only thing that existed was pure energy. Some of this energy condensed to become matter.
This is what I believe but I do not believe it in a religious sense. Rather I see it as a hypothesis which is falsifiable. If someone manages to falsify it then I will gladly change my view and go on from there.
|
Most scientists would disagree with you. Darwin certainly did! Furthermore, since we're an integral part of the universe, we could not have evolved, for evolution requires change. And what is pure existence cannot change. It always was, is and always will be what it is.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
05-21-2022, 10:51 AM
|
#8387
|
Librocubicularist
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Most scientists would disagree with you. Darwin certainly did!
|
Bullshit! I own a copy of Darwin's On the Origin of Species. Tell me (chapter and verse so to speak) where he disagrees with me, or me with him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Furthermore, since we're an integral part of the universe, we could not have evolved, for evolution requires change.
|
Requires change? Evolution is change. Our ancestors were bonobos. Their ancestors were a primate species. All mammals are descendants of the mouse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
And what is pure existence cannot change.
|
Are you saying that human beings are pure existence?
__________________
Sapere aude
|
|
|
05-21-2022, 11:00 AM
|
#8388
|
Librocubicularist
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
By the way, we're still waiting for that personal information I asked you for in my last post.
|
You did not ask for any information in your last post.
__________________
Sapere aude
|
|
|
05-21-2022, 01:45 PM
|
#8389
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,887
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Actor
Bullshit! I own a copy of Darwin's On the Origin of Species. Tell me (chapter and verse so to speak) where he disagrees with me, or me with him.
Requires change? Evolution is change. Our ancestors were bonobos. Their ancestors were a primate species. All mammals are descendants of the mouse.
Are you saying that human beings are pure existence?
|
If the universe is eternal, it always existed, exists and will always exists; therefore, the universe must be pure existence. Whatever is pure existence cannot change because it if could change, it would mean that it could have changed in the past in order to come into existence, or it could change in the future to go out of existence. This is why the bible teaches that God is immutable -- because only he is eternal. He cannot change.
And you're telling me that Darwin didn't believe evolution occurred over billions of years -- over a very large span of TIME? Is that what you're saying?
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
05-21-2022, 01:47 PM
|
#8390
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,887
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Actor
You did not ask for any information in your last post.
|
See my post 8375.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
05-21-2022, 01:54 PM
|
#8391
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,887
|
Darwin's twin gods: Time and Chance
In his book, Charles Darwin outlined the basics of his evolutionary theory. He claimed that animal and plant species have changed over TIME and will continue to change, giving rise to new, more advanced species. He contended that evolutionary changes were a result of natural selection, meaning the organisms with the most advantageous inheritable traits survive and reproduce at a higher rate than weaker individuals, perpetuating the strongest variations and eliminating the unfavorable ones.
https://lifehopeandtruth.com/god/is-...-of-evolution/
Since Darwin categorically denied there is any plan or purpose to existence, then all life must have come about by pure Chance.
So, yes, Mr. Actor, Darwin was an idolater, for his two gods were indeed Time and Chance.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
05-21-2022, 04:41 PM
|
#8392
|
Librocubicularist
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
See my post 8375.
|
Your "last post" was 8377.
__________________
Sapere aude
|
|
|
05-21-2022, 04:47 PM
|
#8393
|
Librocubicularist
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Since Darwin categorically denied there is any plan or purpose to existence, then all life must have come about by pure Chance.
|
Not "pure Chance." There is a degree of randomness but I would not call that "pure Chance."
__________________
Sapere aude
|
|
|
05-21-2022, 04:59 PM
|
#8394
|
Librocubicularist
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
|
The link has this statement:
"Historically speaking, the belief in evolution is a relatively new phenomenon. Throughout the history of Western civilization, people in most cultures believed that humankind and all forms of life were specially created by God."
This is not true. Belief in evolution goes back to the ancient Greeks, perhaps even earlier.
__________________
Sapere aude
|
|
|
05-21-2022, 06:56 PM
|
#8395
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,887
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Actor
Your "last post" was 8377.
|
Big deal. Take up the challenge in 8375. Show us how trustful your fellow man.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
05-21-2022, 07:00 PM
|
#8396
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,887
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Actor
Not "pure Chance." There is a degree of randomness but I would not call that "pure Chance."
|
A "degree" of randomness? Really? You mean there is some aim, direction, rule, method, purpose or intentionality to the universe? If there's only a "degree of randomness", then what is the other degree that makes up the whole?
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
05-21-2022, 07:02 PM
|
#8397
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,887
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Actor
The link has this statement:
"Historically speaking, the belief in evolution is a relatively new phenomenon. Throughout the history of Western civilization, people in most cultures believed that humankind and all forms of life were specially created by God."
This is not true. Belief in evolution goes back to the ancient Greeks, perhaps even earlier.
|
Yeah, it is true. Greece was only the 5th world empire. Four others preceded Greece. And all those empires had their pantheons of gods, including Greece.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
05-22-2022, 01:28 AM
|
#8398
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: St. Louis suburb
Posts: 1,764
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Actor
That does not answer my question?
|
What is so difficult? You made the absolute statement that "Religion depends on unquestioning belief for its very existence".
I gave one exception among others, i.e., the Catholic Church vis-ŕ-vis fideism. There are cosmological arguments from Classical philosophy ( Aristotle), to Judaism ( Maimonides), and Islam ( Avicenna), to cite one aspect of natural theology. Another aspect is to consider consciousness, and the unresolved problems it can present for materialism... https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/i...lity/#InteNatu
__________________
"I like to come here (Saratoga) every year to visit my money." ---Joe E. Lewis
|
|
|
05-22-2022, 01:56 AM
|
#8399
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: St. Louis suburb
Posts: 1,764
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Actor
The guy asked "What was the purpose of consciousness when reproduction was doing just fine?" Evolution has no purpose, ergo, the guy does not understand evolution.
|
That's nothing more than a handwave to ward off final causes in nature, because per the Early Moderns, final causes couldn't be quantified. Moderns use it to ward off You-Know-Who.
But I'll play along, and state that I was paraphrasing Tallis from memory, quite likely incorrectly inserting "purpose". Substitute "function" if you like...What was the function of consciousness since reproduction was doing fine?
Back to the point, though. Nagel, Tallis, David Chalmers get ridiculed by the scientific orthodoxy and its high priest, Daniel Dennett, for questioning current theories about consciousness. On the other hand, way back in the 17th century Cardinal Bellarmine wrote to Galileo's bud that if Galileo could present evidence for heliocentrism, “if there were a true demonstration, then it would be necessary to be very careful in explaining Scriptures that seemed contrary”.
__________________
"I like to come here (Saratoga) every year to visit my money." ---Joe E. Lewis
|
|
|
05-22-2022, 10:05 AM
|
#8400
|
Librocubicularist
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
A "degree" of randomness? Really? You mean there is some aim, direction, rule, method, purpose or intentionality to the universe?
|
No, I do not mean that at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
If there's only a "degree of randomness", then what is the other degree that makes up the whole?
|
The mathematical term is "degree of freedom." I should have used that instead of "degree of randomness" but at the time I could not remember the mathematical term. I've since had the time to look it up.
Put it this way. Do you look exactly like either of your parents. Of course not. Are you an average between your parents, e.g., is the length of your nose the average between the length of your parents noses? Possibly, but probably not. There are thousands, possibly millions, of genes that make up your personal genome. There could be billions of possible combinations. Which combination comes about is random but it's not a matter of chance alone.
__________________
Sapere aude
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|