-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
An open challenge to evolutionists.
- Thread starter Iymus
- Start date
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Our perceptions of the universe may be objective or subjective, but the operation of the universe is unaffected by this.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
So we are not a part of the universe? Then where are we?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
That's not at all what he said or implied.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Cool word games, bro.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
The universe is not just everything outside humans as the light and so on coming to humans. That is a form of dualism.
Subjective and objective are also part of the universe. I am tired of the map and the territory. If the map is not in the territory, then where is the map?
Where are scientists if not in the universe and a part of how the universe of the universe operates?
Cut out the dualism!
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Still stuck in that strawman I see. Eventhough 2 people now brought it to your attention - 1 of them being @tas8831 himself, the very person you are strawmanning...
I guess that means that you don't care about arguing a strawman and just like to argue.
The troll hypothesis, seems to be gaining more supporting evidence with every post you make.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
And you still haven't answered with reasoned arguments.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I don't need a reasoned argument to point out a strawman.
There is no 'preceding Creationism' concerning evolution. The theories and hypothesis for evolution and the history of life has been falsified and demonstrated far beyond any reasonable doubt. IF God exists, and Created our existence, life and humanity it is by the natural methods that the sciences described through scientific methodology. There is no other alternative theory nor hypothesis that explains the matter of fact physical evidence.
If evolution is to be challenged it must be challenged on these grounds.
Mman
Purple
Evolution takes place through 3 processes over time.
1. Random mutation
2. Genetic drift
3. Natural selection
It's a common belief that evolution is, "coincidental randomness, and changes within living / non living and organic / non organic material, over time," that is one element of the theory of evolution but not the actual theory.
If you want to understand evolution you will have to read up about it and engage in the learning process.
I recommend this book to start you out. learning involves reflection and effort, don't forget that in this process.
https://www.veryshortintroductions..../9780192802514.001.0001/actrade-9780192802514
1. Random mutation
2. Genetic drift
3. Natural selection
It's a common belief that evolution is, "coincidental randomness, and changes within living / non living and organic / non organic material, over time," that is one element of the theory of evolution but not the actual theory.
If you want to understand evolution you will have to read up about it and engage in the learning process.
I recommend this book to start you out. learning involves reflection and effort, don't forget that in this process.
https://www.veryshortintroductions..../9780192802514.001.0001/actrade-9780192802514
The only thing that needs some explanation, because of the common misunderstanding of what constitutes 'randomness.' The reality is in nature the only thing that is observed to be random is the outcome of individual cause and effect events within a possibly alternatives constrained by natural laws and nature processes. The overall chain cause and effect events in nature are not random. The pattern over time likewise limited by natural laws and processes is fractal, but not random.
This needs to be clarified, because many critics of abiogenesis and evolution interpret 'randomness' is anything goes, and nature alone is some sort of unpredictable chaos.
Mman
Purple
In what way is evolution fractal? Can you please give an example of this. In eukaryotic evolution, for example, cells have non-fractal differences, especially in the differences between multicellular organisms.
Random mutation is one element of evolution, that was my point to the OP. We could debate whether the random mutation is truly random but I fear it would become pedantic and miss the wider point: evolution happens due to multiple factors, not just random mutation.
You are going beyond the reading of my post concerning the nature of mutations. Simple statements like 'mutations are random' is very misleading. Actually the fractal nature of life goes far beyond just the pattern of cause and effect events that make up the chain of mutations. The following article is valuable in understand this. The article is longer than can be posted. A good primer of 'What is fractal.' is Chaos : Making a New Science by James Gleick
Fractal Evolution
Fractal Evolution
Copyright 1995 - Leading Edge Research Group
"A decade after Mandelbrot published his physiological speculations, some theoretical biologists began to find fractal organization controlling structures all through the body. The standard 'exponential' description of a bronchial branching proved to be quite wrong; a fractal description turned out to fit the data...." --James Gleick
In the view of the Darwinists, the endlessly exquisite designs of nature are the result of an interplay of two factors--random genetic mutation and Natural Selection. Genetic mutation proposes, Natural Selection disposes.
The question of "design" in nature was one that troubled Charles Darwin all his professional life. In the year following the publication of the Origin, he writes to Asa Gray: "I am conscious that I am in an utterly hopeless muddle. I cannot think that the world, as we see it, is the result of chance; and yet I cannot look at each separate thing as the result of design."
Darwinist Ernst Mayr, for one, is well aware of the design dilemma. "No consequence of Darwin's theory of natural selection was a source of greater dismay to his opponents than the elimination of design from nature. Those who studied the countless superb adaptations of animals and plants had been most gratified by the explanation that such perfection was clearly the result of design by the maker of this world." In fact, Darwin did not eliminate design from nature, as he himself indicates in his letter to Gray. Darwin and his followers succeeded only in challenging the traditional idea that the source of all design is God.
After citing many examples of fantastic design in nature, Mayr goes on to say, "But when we ask how this perfection is brought about, we seem to find only arbitrariness, planlessness, randomness, and accident...." If Mayr and his fellow Darwinists find in nature only "arbitrariness, planlessness, randomness, and accident" that is a reflection on their ability, not on the capability of nature.
Today, any graduate student asked to develop a paper on the subject of design in nature would invariably wind up looking into fractal geometry and mathematics. Fractal geometry, as its name implies, is a geometry focusing on the description of geometrical structures, and structuring, in fractional space.
Until 1975, we didn't have a fractal geometry. Our only geometry was the familiar Euclidean geometry, which goes back over two thousand years. The Elements of Euclid (circa 300 B.C.) summarized in thirteen volumes the mathematical knowledge of ancient Greece. Up into our own century, Euclid's books of geometry were taken as the final, authoritative word on the subject. Euclidean geometry deals with whole rather than fractional realities. Plane geometry concerns planar (one- and two-dimensional) structures, and solid geometry describes volumetric (three-dimensional) structures.
"New geometry's always begin," writes James Gleick, "when someone changes a fundamental rule." Fundamental supposition would be a better term than rule. Gleick continues: "Suppose space can be curved instead of flat, a geometer says, and the result is a weird curved parody of Euclid that provides precisely the right framework for the general theory of relativity. Suppose space can have four dimensions, or five, or six. Suppose the number expressing dimension can be a fraction.... suppose shapes are defined, not by solving an equation once, but by iterating it [repeating it] in a feedback loop."
French mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot made a number of the above suppositions, and the result was the birth in 1975 of "fractal" (fractional) geometry and mathematics (Les Objets Fractal). The original stimulus behind Mandelbrot's work was an interest in irregular (seemingly "chaotic") patterns. Cotton prices over a long period of time, frequency of earthquakes, flooding conditions.... all seemed to occur with a regular irregularity. What was the principle of order within the chaos?
Mandelbrot's "studies of irregular patterns," Gleick indicates, "and his exploration of infinitely complex shapes had an intellectual intersection: a quality of self-similarity. Above all, fractal meant self-similar."
"Self-similarity is symmetry across scale. It implies recursion, pattern inside of pattern. Mandelbrot's price charts and river charts displayed self-similarity, because not only did they produce detail at finer and finer scales, they also produced detail with certain constant measurements...."
The physical world, the explicate realm, is structured along the lines of fractal geometry. The basic underlying idea is the idea of repetition of structure in different scales of magnitude. The common example is a coastline. A photograph of a section of coastline from a blimp will show the same ragged contours as a photograph of the whole coast taken from a space station. A photograph of a one-foot-long section of the same coast will also show the same contours. The various coastlines are "self-similar," each similar to the others in shape, but different in magnitude.
Not pedantic, but an important issue as to how randomness is defined throughout nature. I admit to being sensitive to the misuse of the concept of randomness, because of the Creationist agenda and how they misrepresent and misquote science concerning randomness.
Last edited:
Mman
Purple
Do you believe in evolution?
I scanned your quoted text but it's from a random source, if you could post a paper whose abstract and conclusion I could read that would be more helpful.
If your issue is merely, 'it's fractal not random' I'd say, perhaps in some way, I'm not sure, I don't really have much of an interest in exploring that as it sound like new age airness...
I don't want to put the effort into researching your source as 1) the website is non scientific and suspicious. The leading edge research group is not credible, not in hard sciences or humanities. 2) upon reading the first few paragraphs I read, "In the view of the Darwinists, the endlessly exquisite designs of nature are the result of an interplay of two factors--random genetic mutation and Natural Selection. This misses genetic shift and shows the crude knowledge base of the writer/group.
Also dawins theories have been built on. Evolutionists are not dawinists. All the language is suspicious, this is coming from a linguistics background myself.
My reason for posting was not to debate if random genetic mutation is fractal. Sorry I personally don't have much interest in debating that. If you would like to pursue this for some reason please don't quote large volumes of mystic text and expect me to read it all. Be considerate of my time and the effort I would have to put in to refute such a ethereal claim.
Thanks
Mman
I scanned your quoted text but it's from a random source, if you could post a paper whose abstract and conclusion I could read that would be more helpful.
If your issue is merely, 'it's fractal not random' I'd say, perhaps in some way, I'm not sure, I don't really have much of an interest in exploring that as it sound like new age airness...
I don't want to put the effort into researching your source as 1) the website is non scientific and suspicious. The leading edge research group is not credible, not in hard sciences or humanities. 2) upon reading the first few paragraphs I read, "In the view of the Darwinists, the endlessly exquisite designs of nature are the result of an interplay of two factors--random genetic mutation and Natural Selection. This misses genetic shift and shows the crude knowledge base of the writer/group.
Also dawins theories have been built on. Evolutionists are not dawinists. All the language is suspicious, this is coming from a linguistics background myself.
My reason for posting was not to debate if random genetic mutation is fractal. Sorry I personally don't have much interest in debating that. If you would like to pursue this for some reason please don't quote large volumes of mystic text and expect me to read it all. Be considerate of my time and the effort I would have to put in to refute such a ethereal claim.
Thanks
Mman
dad
Undefeated
I think that to accept and believe in the evolution of life, one must deny creation and ignore it. (unless one mutilates all meaning of the bible to try and conform to manscience)
GardenLady
Active Member
Many people refer to "believing'" in evolution. I do not "believe" in evolution. In my lexicon, "belief" reflects faith. I believe in God. I accept the scientific evidence for evolution and deep time, both of which are plentiful.
Dad asserted that, "to accept and believe in the evolution of life, one must deny creation and ignore it." I disagree.
There are many, many people of faith who believe in God and believe that God had a hand in creation, but emphatically do not view Genesis as a science or history book.
I am a mainstream Christian (ELCA Lutheran, raised Catholic) who believes in God and believes that he had a hand in creation, and also accepts the scientific evidence supporting evolution and deep time. Within mainstream Christianity (e.g., the Reformation denominations and Catholic and Anglican/Episcopalian), I believe this is the overwhelmingly common position.
As to the existence of God and the divinity of Jesus, that is a matter of faith. Science, which researches the natural cosmos, cannot study, confirm, or deny his existence. As Carl Sagan said about life on other planets, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I believe it is an abomination for YECs to deny the faith of the great majority of Christians and assert that evolution is an atheistic "belief." And it equally wrong for atheists who accept scientific evidence for evolution and deep time to assert that those who agree must also set aside belief in God.
Yes, I recognize that there are many religious and many perceptions of God. "We see through a glass, darkly."
Dad asserted that, "to accept and believe in the evolution of life, one must deny creation and ignore it." I disagree.
There are many, many people of faith who believe in God and believe that God had a hand in creation, but emphatically do not view Genesis as a science or history book.
I am a mainstream Christian (ELCA Lutheran, raised Catholic) who believes in God and believes that he had a hand in creation, and also accepts the scientific evidence supporting evolution and deep time. Within mainstream Christianity (e.g., the Reformation denominations and Catholic and Anglican/Episcopalian), I believe this is the overwhelmingly common position.
As to the existence of God and the divinity of Jesus, that is a matter of faith. Science, which researches the natural cosmos, cannot study, confirm, or deny his existence. As Carl Sagan said about life on other planets, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I believe it is an abomination for YECs to deny the faith of the great majority of Christians and assert that evolution is an atheistic "belief." And it equally wrong for atheists who accept scientific evidence for evolution and deep time to assert that those who agree must also set aside belief in God.
Yes, I recognize that there are many religious and many perceptions of God. "We see through a glass, darkly."
dad
Undefeated
If you do not deny there was a real Eve created by God from a bone of a man, then how could we have descended from the same ancestors as flatworms?
Apostasy is common.
I believe you are wrong. It is our duty.
They are correct, we need to choose whom we will believe. If God be God then believe Him. They have the honesty to realize that the bible makes certain claims about creation. Such as that Eve was the first woman and mother of us all.
1Jo 2:8 - Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.
Creation was proclaimed from the beginning and is not something seen in a glass darkly. It is repeated clearly from cover to cover in black and white and red.