An open challenge to evolutionists.

[exchemist]

Responses to Responses towards me on page 3.



Though, Wisdom, Life



Dan 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

Good Question. Concerning my own soul it is recorded to be around 1987, 1988. Concerning the works of the Intelligent Designer himself difficult for me to say.

Ecc 11:5 As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.



Constant Creation.



Perhaps the faces of the judges and those in academia are being covered.

Job 9:24 The earth is given into the hand of the wicked: he covereth the faces of the judges thereof; if not, where, and who is he?



theories seems to be honour of men . I suspect Intelligent designer deals in truth and facts alone.

Joh 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

Joh 5:44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?



your words are dully noted.



Essentially as in Contradicting Creationism.



Evolution theory superseding as in valid, and invaliding Creationism.

Truth precedes lies.

Validity precedes Invalidity.



Not necessarily since people believed in God or gods before evolution theory. Isn't Evolution theory of the 19th century and we are said to be in the 21st century currently.

My words are "dully noted": I like that.

 

[ratiocinator]

So a part of the universe has illogical nonsense in it and that is a fact, so the universe can't be logical, if it has illogical nonsense in it.
That is the contradiction.

No. Part of the universe is human minds and human minds can have thoughts and beliefs in them that are not logical. There is no contradiction. The underlying logic of the universe does not mean that every thought in every mind must be logical - there is absolutely no reason to expect that at all.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. Part of the universe is human minds and human minds can have thoughts and beliefs in them that are not logical. There is no contradiction. The underlying logic of the universe does not mean that every thought in every mind must be logical - there is absolutely no reason to expect that at all.

So the underlying logic of the universe causes not logical thoughts and beliefs.
Now explain that and not just claim it.

 

[exchemist]

So a part of the universe has illogical nonsense in it and that is a fact, so the universe can't be logical, if it has illogical nonsense in it.
That is the contradiction.
All parts of the universe are logical and the parts with illogical nonsense are logical.

I do not see how a physical entity can be described as either logical or illogical. Logic is an abstract reasoning process, not a property of physical systems.

There is, apparently, a high degree of order in the universe, which we model through our "laws of nature". But there is also, apparently, inbuilt randomness, too. We model this randomness too in our laws of nature.

To me the great aesthetic beauty of physical science is to account for how order appears from randomness, via the operation of physical principles. But this is physical science, not abstract logic.

 

[exchemist]

So the underlying logic of the universe causes not logical thoughts and beliefs.
Now explain that and not just claim it.

See post 84:randomness.

 

[ratiocinator]

So the underlying logic of the universe causes not logical thoughts and beliefs.
Now explain that and not just claim it.

It's actually your burden of proof because it's you who claimed it was a contradiction, so really you need to tell me why the underlying logic of the universe would necessitate that every mind that evolved in it contained only logical thoughts, as opposed to thoughts that got there for logical reasons.

In fact, it's rather obvious that human minds evolved to survive in a certain environment, not to always be strictly logical in thought. An obvious example is hyperactive agent detection. It's better to think that a rock wants to fall on you than fail to think a tiger wants to eat you. It's better to see faces in clouds and fires than not see them hidden in the forest. False positives are better than false negatives.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I do not see how a physical entity can be described as either logical or illogical. Logic is an abstract reasoning process, not a property of physical systems.

There is, apparently, a high degree of order in the universe, which we model through our "laws of nature". But there is also, apparently, inbuilt randomness, too. We model this randomness too in our laws of nature.

To me the great aesthetic beauty of physical science is to account for how order appears from randomness, via the operation of physical principles. But this is physical science, not abstract logic.

Yes, but some people don't check their thinking.
So let us play the The One.
The One is all loving. No, because there is also hate and so on.
The One is all positive answers. No, negative.
The One is one. No, two.
The One is logical. No!
The One is rational. No, because humans can be irrational.
The One is objective empirical observation. No, right now, I am subjective.

The One has many names and not all are religious. Now as a skeptic I believe in The Wrong One.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Essentially as in Contradicting Creationism.

Evolution contradicts creationism insofar as the creationist wants to claim that certain species were created "as is", with no evolutionary background.

Evolution theory states that species evolved from ancestral species and that therefor, all species are related in one huge family tree, all coming from a common ancestors some 4 billion years ago.

That's the evidence based science.
Religious creationism (like YECism), contradict that science.

Evolution theory superseding as in valid, and invaliding Creationism.

Here's the thing though... and seemingly very little creationists seem to understand this....

For creationism to be valid, is entirely creationism's responsability.
If tomorrow evolution theory is completely disproven, then that will not make creationism "valid" by default. Not even by a long shot. Not even remotely.

For creationism to be "valid", creationism needs to make testable predictions that can be tested and verified. Then creationists have a burden of proof to meet. THAT is how you validate an idea: by coming up with supporting evidence.

If creationism validity is dependend on the invalidity of some other idea, then creationism is actually invalid by default.

Truth precedes lies.

And mistakes precede corrections.

Jupiter and Thor came first as an explanation of lightning and thunder. Then the actual explanation came and corrected those mistakes.

Validity precedes Invalidity.

It's the other way round, actually.
We learn more over time, not less.

Not necessarily

Not necessarily, no. I said "in general"

since people believed in God or gods before evolution theory

And they believed in demonic posession as an explanation for desease before knowing about germs.
And they believed in Poseidon before knowing about storms and tides.
And they believe in Thor and Jupiter before actually understanding lightning and thunder.

What of it?

Isn't Evolution theory of the 19th century and we are said to be in the 21st century currently.

So?

 

[exchemist]

Yes, but some people don't check their thinking.
So let us play the The One.
The One is all loving. No, because there is also hate and so on.
The One is all positive answers. No, negative.
The One is one. No, two.
The One is logical. No!
The One is rational. No, because humans can be irrational.
The One is objective empirical observation. No, right now, I am subjective.

The One has many names and not all are religious. Now as a skeptic I believe in The Wrong One.

Er, sorry, you've lost me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's actually your burden of proof because it's you who claimed it was a contradiction, so really you need to tell me why the underlying logic of the universe would necessitate that every mind that evolved in it contained only logical thoughts, as opposed to thoughts that got there for logical reasons.

In fact, it's rather obvious that human minds evolved to survive in a certain environment, not to always be strictly logical in thought. An obvious example is hyperactive agent detection. It's better to think that a rock wants to fall on you than fail to think a tiger wants to eat you. It's better to see faces in clouds and fires than not see them hidden in the forest. False positives are better than false negatives.

Start here: "It is impossible that the same thing belong and not belong to the same thing at the same time and in the same respect." - Aristotle
We are playing same, similar and different for different aspects of the universe and not all things at all time are the same thing at the same time and in the same respect.
What is the underlying logical BTW? You have made a positive claim, now explain it.

So back to @ChristineM and that reality is logical. She hasn't explained that and nor have you explained the underlying logic of the universe.

I claim that logic as the law of human thought in regards has a limitation, because it is about local things and not all things.
So what is the underlying logic of the universe?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Er, sorry, you've lost me.

Some people reduce away differences and claim that the universe is the same for all time, places and things in one respect.
That is absurd, because the universe is not the same in all respects.

 

[ratiocinator]

What is the underlying logical BTW? You have made a positive claim, now explain it.

Hang on a moment, if you don't know what it means how could you possibly claim to be able to do a reductio ad absurdum with it? That makes your claim doubly absurd.

As for me, I'm taking it to mean that the universe is logically self-consistent.

 

[exchemist]

Some people reduce away differences and claim that the universe is the same for all time, places and things in one respect.
That is absurd, because the universe is not the same in all respects.

Are you referring to uniformitarianism? This is simply one of many applications of Ockham's Razor, a justifiable presumption until empirically shown to be inapplicable.

It is the basis on which science works, and science works rather well, we find.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are you referring to uniformitarianism? This is simply one of many applications of Ockham's Razor, a justifiable presumption until empirically shown to be inapplicable.

It is the basis on which science works, and science works rather well, we find.

No, that we e.g. are exactly the same because we all need water or we will die. But that is not the case, it is the case that all humans as individuals need water and if I don't get it, you won't die.
Same, similar and different.
When we do the universe with humans in it, then you need all 3: Same, similar and different.

Overall you and I are covered by the same natural laws, but closer up we are not the same, we are similar and yet closer we are different. Logic doesn't work all the way down to different, if we are different.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hang on a moment, if you don't know what it means how could you possibly claim to be able to do a reductio ad absurdum with it? That makes your claim doubly absurd.

As for me, I'm taking it to mean that the universe is logically self-consistent.

No, the universe is not logical self-consistent as not containing any logical contradictions, because the law of non-contradiction only applies to local things at a given time and in a given respect.
Logic is a process in brains and computer. Not a process in the universe as such. That is Platonic Idealism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hang on a moment, if you don't know what it means how could you possibly claim to be able to do a reductio ad absurdum with it? That makes your claim doubly absurd.

As for me, I'm taking it to mean that the universe is logically self-consistent.

Take 2: Logic are only observed in some lifeforms and computers. Further for consistent as of an argument or set of ideas not containing any logical contradictions, the universe is neither an argument nor a set of ideas. If you claim that you are a platonic idealist.

Wiki will do:
"In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive. Formally this is expressed as the tautology ¬(p ∧ ¬p)."

The universe is not a proposition. You are projecting your thoughts onto the universe as such.

 

[ratiocinator]

No, the universe is not logical self-consistent as not containing any logical contradictions, because the law of non-contradiction only applies to local things at a given time and in a given respect.

Bold and totally unsupported assertion. What reasons do you have for it and how exactly do you reconcile that with the consistency that we actually observe? How, in fact, do you imagine it would even be possible for reasoning beings to exist in a self-contradictory reality?

How exactly do to define "local things" or "at a given time"; what scales and timescales are you imagining and for what reasons?

Logic is a process in brains and computer. Not a process in the universe as such.

Logic is a process that serves us very well in understanding the intersubjective "reality" we find ourselves in, and logical self-consistent isn't a process.

Do you actually have a position here, because it just seems like when each of your points is proved to be false you just jump to something entirely different? You started off claiming a reductio ad absurdum and it now turns out that you didn't understand either what was required, or, for that matter, what the terms involved even meant...

Added: Oh, and a reductio ad absurdum is a logical construct that wouldn't even apply if the universe isn't self-consistent...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Logic is a process that serves us very well in understanding the intersubjective "reality" we find ourselves in, and logical self-consistent isn't a process.
...

Logic is a process and logical self-consistency as logical is process and isn't a process. Could you make up your mind?
So logic is a process and logical is not a process. Got you!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Added: Oh, and a reductio ad absurdum is a logical construct that wouldn't even apply if the universe isn't self-consistent...

The universe is also in us and we can be illogical.
Humans are never illogical, yet they are, so how can the universe as such be just logical.
And yes, that is a contradiction. All parts of the universe are without being illogical, yet humans as parts are sometimes illogical and humans as parts are parts of the universe.

The universe is not a set of logical operators as in logic unless you can explain how we observe that???
It is an idea in your brain. Now test it!

 

[ratiocinator]

Logic is a process and logical self-consistency as logical is process and isn't a process.

I didn't say that. Logical self-consistency is a state that can be described using logic.

Now how about you deal with how a reductio ad absurdum can be used when you don't know what the terms mean and you claim that the universe isn't logically self-consistent, so a contradiction in the negation wouldn't necessarily mean that the proposition was false.

For that matter, if the universe isn't self-consistent, then even if I had claimed that something was a process and not a process, that would be perfectly possible...