quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Since you brought up the "awesome demonstration of my ignorance of evolution", perhaps I should point out your apparent ignorance of the laws the Universe works by. Once the "Big Bang" occurred, every bit of matter and energy would continue on the course set for them by that "Big Bang" according to the "Natural" laws of the Universe and there would be no "great many alternatives and chance happenings" and no "unpredictability of environmental changes" and there would be "mechanical certainty". The only way this would not be the case is if they were acted upon by an outside force and surely you're not admitting that there could be an "outside force" of some kind.

I don't know where you ever got the idea that evolution of life on earth is subject to deterministic forces. Firstly, the model of Evolution (capitalized here to refer specifically to change of life forms on earth) that Darwin and the neo-evolutionists left us has nothing to say about the Big Bang. Nor does it have anything to say about the beginning of life on earth. The universe is believed to be about 14 billion years old; the earth about 5.6 (?) billion years old. When and how life first appeared on earth is anybody's guess, but it is not a hypothesis that supports Evolution. There seems to be some consensus that primitive life has been on this planet for the past 3 billion years. I don't know how that time was arrived at, and there is no scientific agreement how life began, except that early on there was a formation of very simple amino acids and organic bases, which are the building blocks of proteins and of DNA. This may have happened several times in different locales. The narrative then suggests these chemicals were incorporated to form simple non-membraneous cells. There are several theories about how this happened under the umbrella of Abiogenesis. But definitely not Darwin's Theory.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

"according to the "Natural" laws of the Universe and there would be no "great many alternatives and chance happenings" and no "unpredictability of environmental changes" and there would be "mechanical certainty"

I don't know where you got this from but I would bet it was not from the writings of an Evolutionary scientist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Evolution is not random, but neither is it deterministic. Darwin told us that changes in life emerged from the fortuitous variety of genes that could withstand changes in the environment. Now, changes in the environment could result from global warming as we seem to be experiencing today, or by migration of part of a herd into a new locale, or by a catastrophic geological upheaval (tornado, earthquake, island formation, etc.) In the Greek Islands the caldera at Santerini demonstrates the rise of a ring of mountains around an ancient volcano, or if you live in Wyoming you can observe the Yellowstone caldera which is very active today. Other examples of "new" island formations would be Iceland, Hawaii, and the Galapagos. In today's news scientists have reported 91 previously unknown mountains under the ice sheet of west Antarctica. Mountains and new volcanoes represent changes in the earth's crust. I am astonished at the determinism you report.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Then, getting into subatomic ranges we are confronted by observations and measurements of quantum changes which are highly anti-deterministic and we have the observation that an electron can be measured as a particle and as a field of wave energy at the same time, or the phenomenon that an electron can pass through two different "doors" simultaneously. There are many natural wonders to be discovered by scientists and I am comfortable in assuring you they are not deterministic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Oh, let me point out that the "Laws of Nature" are not really Laws like those immutable commands handed down in the Bible. They are actually formulations made by scientists on recurring observations. They are man-made concepts and they may very well be wrong. I would not hang my hat on the natural laws as you have done.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

worth the quick read comrades:

quote:

QUESTION: Catastrophism versus Uniformitarianism – Where does the evidence lead?

ANSWER:

Catastrophism versus uniformitarianism describes alternative process which could be primarily responsible for the formation the geological strata and embedded fossils. Catastrophism was accepted as the only possible explanation until the about the 18th century. Catastrophism taught that the geologic rock strata were primarily a result of catastrophes like the worldwide flood of Noah. At that time James Hutton and Sir Charles Lyell proposed an alternative explanation of uniformitarianism. The theory of uniformitarianism taught that the present was the key to the past and exactly the same slow process that we see today is the one responsible for the formation of all the geological rock strata.

Since deposition with the uniformitarianism theory was so slow, long eons of time were required. This meant that the current biblical beliefs at that time of a young earth, the recent history of life on earth and the worldwide flood of Noah were discredited. In addition, uniformitarianism laid the foundation for Darwin’s theory of evolution, which also needed an old earth to be credible.

So uniformitarianism dethroned catastrophism and evolution dethroned biblical creationism and both became the dominant theories in academia and science until the present time. Currently, academia and science are clinging to uniformitarianism and biological macroevolution with all the strength they can muster. However, large splits have been seen in the ranks. During the last 50 years an enormous amount of information has been collected that supports catastrophism and intelligent design.

The Mount St. Helens eruption and subsequent erosion has taught us that rapid deposition and rapid canyon erosion is a fact. It doesn’t take years to form. It doesn’t take rocket science to know that life forms cannot be fossilized unless buried rapidly.

Regarding biological macroevolution:
• No transitional fossils have been found; museums should be full of them.
• Hoaxes, forgeries, and misrepresentations have been rampant.
• Evolutionists can’t explain the origin of life.
• Evolutionists can’t explain complexity or irreducible complexity.
• Evolutionists can’t explain consciousness.

Many in science and academia have a deeply held religious belief in uniformitarianism and evolution in spite of all the evidence pointing in the opposite direction. This is understandable from several standpoints:
• Not wanting to be accountable to a God, they would have to accept if they would let the scientific data form their scientific beliefs.
• Their conflict of interest is revealed by their complete refusal to consider special creation as a possible alternative explanation, especially when the fossil evidence stares them in the face.
• The fact that their original theories were based upon religious political motivations. Dr. Henry Morris claimed that this was true for Sir Charles Lyell. Julian Huxley, grandson of Thomas Huxley “Darwin’s bulldog,” first director of UNESCO and prominent evolutionist was asked on a public radio station an interesting question. He was asked why evolution was accepted so rapidly. He didn’t say anything relating to scientific evidence. He said the reason it became so popular was because it didn’t interfere with our sexual mores.

Consequently, the evidence definitely leads to the fact that the new paradigm shift from a solid belief in the Bible, the biblical flood and a young earth to skepticism in the Bible, rejection of the biblical flood of Noah and an old earth occurred as a result of using the banner of science to promote a religious belief rather than being based upon scientific evidence. Uniformitarianism and evolution theories were tools to accomplish this.

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/catastrophism-versus-uniformitarianism-faq.htm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

worth the quick read comrades:

quote:

QUESTION: Catastrophism versus Uniformitarianism – Where does the evidence lead?

ANSWER:

Catastrophism versus uniformitarianism describes alternative process which could be primarily responsible for the formation the geological strata and embedded fossils. Catastrophism was accepted as the only possible explanation until the about the 18th century. Catastrophism taught that the geologic rock strata were primarily a result of catastrophes like the worldwide flood of Noah. At that time James Hutton and Sir Charles Lyell proposed an alternative explanation of uniformitarianism. The theory of uniformitarianism taught that the present was the key to the past and exactly the same slow process that we see today is the one responsible for the formation of all the geological rock strata.

Since deposition with the uniformitarianism theory was so slow, long eons of time were required. This meant that the current biblical beliefs at that time of a young earth, the recent history of life on earth and the worldwide flood of Noah were discredited. In addition, uniformitarianism laid the foundation for Darwin’s theory of evolution, which also needed an old earth to be credible.

So uniformitarianism dethroned catastrophism and evolution dethroned biblical creationism and both became the dominant theories in academia and science until the present time. Currently, academia and science are clinging to uniformitarianism and biological macroevolution with all the strength they can muster. However, large splits have been seen in the ranks. During the last 50 years an enormous amount of information has been collected that supports catastrophism and intelligent design.

The Mount St. Helens eruption and subsequent erosion has taught us that rapid deposition and rapid canyon erosion is a fact. It doesn’t take years to form. It doesn’t take rocket science to know that life forms cannot be fossilized unless buried rapidly.

Regarding biological macroevolution:
• No transitional fossils have been found; museums should be full of them.
• Hoaxes, forgeries, and misrepresentations have been rampant.
• Evolutionists can’t explain the origin of life.
• Evolutionists can’t explain complexity or irreducible complexity.
• Evolutionists can’t explain consciousness.

Many in science and academia have a deeply held religious belief in uniformitarianism and evolution in spite of all the evidence pointing in the opposite direction. This is understandable from several standpoints:
• Not wanting to be accountable to a God, they would have to accept if they would let the scientific data form their scientific beliefs.
• Their conflict of interest is revealed by their complete refusal to consider special creation as a possible alternative explanation, especially when the fossil evidence stares them in the face.
• The fact that their original theories were based upon religious political motivations. Dr. Henry Morris claimed that this was true for Sir Charles Lyell. Julian Huxley, grandson of Thomas Huxley “Darwin’s bulldog,” first director of UNESCO and prominent evolutionist was asked on a public radio station an interesting question. He was asked why evolution was accepted so rapidly. He didn’t say anything relating to scientific evidence. He said the reason it became so popular was because it didn’t interfere with our sexual mores.

Consequently, the evidence definitely leads to the fact that the new paradigm shift from a solid belief in the Bible, the biblical flood and a young earth to skepticism in the Bible, rejection of the biblical flood of Noah and an old earth occurred as a result of using the banner of science to promote a religious belief rather than being based upon scientific evidence. Uniformitarianism and evolution theories were tools to accomplish this.

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/catastrophism-versus-uniformitarianism-faq.htm

Thanx, an interesting read.

Although I don't believe in a "young Earth", it could have been around for millions of years, I tend to believe that the period of Creation of plant and animal life was much shorter than "Evolutionists" would have us believe, although much longer than the 144 hours "Creationists" would have us believe.

quote:

I was trying to make a point that someone who had read about science but had never actually done it for a living might consider useful to think about. I'll let the point go. Maybe I was being arrogant.

quote:

Although I don't believe in a "young Earth", it could have been around for millions of years, I tend to believe that the period of Creation of plant and animal life was much shorter than "Evolutionists" would have us believe, although much longer than the 144 hours "Creationists" would have us believe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

worth the quick read comrades:

quote:

QUESTION: Catastrophism versus Uniformitarianism – Where does the evidence lead?

ANSWER:

Catastrophism versus uniformitarianism describes alternative process which could be primarily responsible for the formation the geological strata and embedded fossils. Catastrophism was accepted as the only possible explanation until the about the 18th century. Catastrophism taught that the geologic rock strata were primarily a result of catastrophes like the worldwide flood of Noah. At that time James Hutton and Sir Charles Lyell proposed an alternative explanation of uniformitarianism. The theory of uniformitarianism taught that the present was the key to the past and exactly the same slow process that we see today is the one responsible for the formation of all the geological rock strata.

Since deposition with the uniformitarianism theory was so slow, long eons of time were required. This meant that the current biblical beliefs at that time of a young earth, the recent history of life on earth and the worldwide flood of Noah were discredited. In addition, uniformitarianism laid the foundation for Darwin’s theory of evolution, which also needed an old earth to be credible.

So uniformitarianism dethroned catastrophism and evolution dethroned biblical creationism and both became the dominant theories in academia and science until the present time. Currently, academia and science are clinging to uniformitarianism and biological macroevolution with all the strength they can muster. However, large splits have been seen in the ranks. During the last 50 years an enormous amount of information has been collected that supports catastrophism and intelligent design.

The Mount St. Helens eruption and subsequent erosion has taught us that rapid deposition and rapid canyon erosion is a fact. It doesn’t take years to form. It doesn’t take rocket science to know that life forms cannot be fossilized unless buried rapidly.

Regarding biological macroevolution:
• No transitional fossils have been found; museums should be full of them.
• Hoaxes, forgeries, and misrepresentations have been rampant.
• Evolutionists can’t explain the origin of life.
• Evolutionists can’t explain complexity or irreducible complexity.
• Evolutionists can’t explain consciousness.

Many in science and academia have a deeply held religious belief in uniformitarianism and evolution in spite of all the evidence pointing in the opposite direction. This is understandable from several standpoints:
• Not wanting to be accountable to a God, they would have to accept if they would let the scientific data form their scientific beliefs.
• Their conflict of interest is revealed by their complete refusal to consider special creation as a possible alternative explanation, especially when the fossil evidence stares them in the face.
• The fact that their original theories were based upon religious political motivations. Dr. Henry Morris claimed that this was true for Sir Charles Lyell. Julian Huxley, grandson of Thomas Huxley “Darwin’s bulldog,” first director of UNESCO and prominent evolutionist was asked on a public radio station an interesting question. He was asked why evolution was accepted so rapidly. He didn’t say anything relating to scientific evidence. He said the reason it became so popular was because it didn’t interfere with our sexual mores.

Consequently, the evidence definitely leads to the fact that the new paradigm shift from a solid belief in the Bible, the biblical flood and a young earth to skepticism in the Bible, rejection of the biblical flood of Noah and an old earth occurred as a result of using the banner of science to promote a religious belief rather than being based upon scientific evidence. Uniformitarianism and evolution theories were tools to accomplish this.

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/catastrophism-versus-uniformitarianism-faq.htm

quote:

First, you need to check your Quantum Mechanics, no "electron can pass through two different "doors" simultaneously"

quote:

So the whole universe is subject to "deterministic forces" except the Earth and "Evolution"?

quote:

Notice the quotation marks, I got it from you and your last post, so I guess you're saying that your not much of an Evolutionary scientist.

quote:

and second if I were you I wouldn't take this discussion into the micro world, because there science has begun to turn strangely toward the probable existence of God.

quote:

Yes free will, you don't have to live on the coast and deal with hurricanes; you don't have to live on the side of a volcano and deal with volcanoes and you really don't have to deal with diseases either but then you would have to have some common sense and follow some simple sanitation principles but then it seems those things are beyond the grasp of your understanding.

quote:

For example most would say gravity is a good thing but if someone takes another and throws them off a cliff then a “good” thing has been used in a terrible way to produce a terrible thing and we really should not blame God for that.

quote:

Look them up for yourself, a Bible shouldn't be too hard for you to find.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Yes indeed. Absolute gibberish, so silly it becomes funny in parts.

There you have it - evolution is a rationalist conspiracy to dethrone Biblical primacy

Though perhaps a far more pertinent question is: How on earth is any otherwise rational person persuaded by such nonsense?

which is the point I made several times about atheist false gods of rationalism, that went zinging right over everyones heads.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

Look them up for yourself, a Bible shouldn't be too hard for you to find.

In other words, you know damn well you were full of shit God-Botherer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

Look them up for yourself, a Bible shouldn't be too hard for you to find.

In other words, you know damn well you were full of shit God-Botherer.

atheists, the ones who have thrown everything religion in the dumpster despite the nose on their face simply pound square pegs in round holes and demand that their methods are the only 'correct' methods.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Illiterate much


God is now described not so much as the underlying substance of all things, but as the universal, immanent and sustaining cause of all that exists: “From the necessity of the divine nature there must follow infinitely many things in infinitely many modes, (i.e., everything that can fall under an infinite intellect)”.

According to the traditional Judeo-Christian conception of divinity, God is a transcendent creator, a being who causes a world distinct from himself to come into being by creating it out of nothing. God produces that world by a spontaneous act of free will, and could just as easily have not created anything outside himself. By contrast, Spinoza’s God is the cause of all things because all things follow causally and necessarily from the divine nature. Or, as he puts it, from God’s infinite power or nature “all things have necessarily flowed, or always followed, by the same necessity and in the same way as from the nature of a triangle it follows, from eternity and to eternity, that its three angles are equal to two right angles” (Ip17s1). The existence of the world is, thus, mathematically necessary. It is impossible that God should exist but not the world. This does not mean that God does not cause the world to come into being freely, since nothing outside of God constrains him to bring it into existence. But Spinoza does deny that God creates the world by some arbitrary and undetermined act of free will. God could not have done otherwise. There are no possible alternatives to the actual world, and absolutely no contingency or spontaneity within that world. Everything is absolutely and necessarily determined.

(Ip29): In nature there is nothing contingent, but all things have been determined from the necessity of the divine nature to exist and produce an effect in a certain way.

(Ip33): Things could have been produced by God in no other way, and in no other order than they have been produced.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Illiterate much

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

@Nnanji

quote:

I was trying to make a point that someone who had read about science but had never actually done it for a living might consider useful to think about. I'll let the point go. Maybe I was being arrogant.

Please elaborate, put it in context. I am very interested.