An open challenge to evolutionists.

[Valjean]

Responses to Responses towards me on page 3.

Valjean said: ↑

What do you mean by creationism? I'm assuming you mean intentionally poofing fully formed organisms into existance, ex nihilo. by some invisible, magical personage.

Though, Wisdom, Life

What does that mean? You haven't answered my question.
Please define what you mean by creationism
How long ago did this creation happen?

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.

You're asking whether evolution happened before or after creation, but can't tell us when creation happened? How are we to address your questions? Your question needs a date.
What evidence is there for this creationism?

Constant Creation.

Huh? What are you talking about?
"Constant creation?" You mean things popping into creation from nothing all the time? Who's ever witnessed such a thing?
In textbooks or scientific articles, creationism never comes up.

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

Stop it! What are you talking about? You're spouting gibberish.
Please just answer questions directly.
You don't understand the theory. Natural selection is no more coincidental than selective breeding.

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

State your point.
My assertion stands. You're expounding on something you've no knowledge of. Facts alone are the domain of science, are they not? And you've produced no evidence of an intelligent designer.
exchemist said: ↑

Completely wrong - at a number of levels.

But useless to try to explain to you.

your words are dully noted.

ROFL! Quite so.

Now you've done a lot of quoting from the Christian Bible in this post, which I deleted, as I saw no relevance to them.
Why did you do this? Why did you not quote scripture from other religious texts, or, more relevantly, from scientific texts?

 

[Polymath257]

From what I have been reading here, some do say they 'know' about the Big Bang as if it really happened from some substance of sort. They really know...

I'm not sure why you bring the notion of 'substance' into this.

We know that the universe was much hotter and denser in the past. We see the remains of this time period in the cosmic background radiation, whose properties *precisely* match what was predicted from the hot Big Bang theory.

To give you an idea of how precise it is, the basic Planck blackbody radiation curve is matched by the background radiation to within one part in 100,000. And the *variations* in that match the predictions made 50+ before they were observed.

Are there questions of details? Of course there are. Are there questions concerning what happened in the very, very early universe (before a second into the current expansion phase)? Absolutely.

But there is no doubt at this point that *everywhere* in the universe that we can access information from was hot and dense enough so that nuclear reactions were going on. Furthermore, those reactions did not go to completion, but were 'cut off' by the expansion cooling things to the place they couldn't go further.

And *that* is what the classical Big Bang theory talks about.

 

[SomeRandom]

From what I have been reading here, some do say they 'know' about the Big Bang as if it really happened from some substance of sort. They really know...

I’m not a physicist, so I have no idea. You don’t ask some random guy on the street for information about the intricacies of various artistic movements and philosophies from the 1700s. Why would one expect random people online to explain in exquisite detail the ins and outs of advanced physics or biology?
Seems a bit....well stupid to me.

I suppose one could I dunno, read up what exactly is the Big Bang theory if one was so inclined to learn. It’s not like it’s some super top secret or anything.

 

[Tiberius]

This response should cover all feedback to me on the second page. I intend to go over the third page and respond at another time.

I hope you don't mind if I reply to these points as well, even those that were not addressed to me.

like rocks and meteors?

No. I';m not aware of anyone who has claimed that BIOLOGICAL evolution applies to rocks and meteors.

Creation is representation of Creationism and Originator.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

No, by calling it creation, you are attempting to suggest a creator. That's not playing fair.

So Evolution has not shown Creationism to be incorrect since it simply refers to the biological description of how species or organisms change over time?

No, evolution concerns itself with how organic organisms change over many generations. Evolution is not a branch of science that worries about trying to disprove the claims of creationism.

Also does Evolution precede time?

As stated, this question seems to make no sense.

Yes Creationism has to do with origin which would precede change.

while the formation of things must take place before those things are able to change, the idea of "creationism" is not required in order to have the idea of "evolution."

origin precedes change

But that does not mean that any particular brand of creationism is the correct explanation for why there are things.

why would gradual or exponential change "have to" precede origin? No simply getting around this?

The process of evolution must take place before there can be the concept of creationism, that's what I think Nowhere Man was trying to say.

So are you trying to say it is not Evolution that contradicts Creationism but Big Bang Theory?

He wasn't talking about the Big Bang, rather he was talking about your brain.

so highly compressed plasma randomly and / or coincidentally changing over time is why an origin of Evolution is more scientific or valid, than an origin of Creation or Intelligent design?

In that there is evidence for it, yes.

With the origins of all things being of an Intelligent design then why not?

Assuming the conclusion, naughty naughty. You can't assume that everything came about by intelligent design if you are trying to show that.

It may seem that way. However if the gods of the nations are idols, graven images, and honour of men, instead of an Intelligent Designer; then perhaps an image or two in itself is worth a thousand words to those said nations.

Psa 96:5 For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens.

What does this have to do with Audie's claim that you don't have the capacity to mount a challenge to evolution?

Good question. I can tell you why all things are of Creation and Originate from an Intelligent Designer but I cannot tell you what tools or creation has to do with evolution invalidating Creation.

If you don't understand evolution, why do you think you can disprove it?

See my response above to Audie. It's in this current reply or response.

I don't see where you have address my point at all, either in your reply to Audie or to anyone else.

You have not provided a single shred of reasoning as to why Idea A should be considered superior to Idea B just because Idea A was around first.

The only way I can see to make sense of your position is to conclude that you can't tell the difference between a thing and the idea of that thing. Namely, you think an alleged act of creation is the same as the idea of creationism.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not sure why you bring the notion of 'substance' into this.

We know that the universe was much hotter and denser in the past. We see the remains of this time period in the cosmic background radiation, whose properties *precisely* match what was predicted from the hot Big Bang theory.

To give you an idea of how precise it is, the basic Planck blackbody radiation curve is matched by the background radiation to within one part in 100,000. And the *variations* in that match the predictions made 50+ before they were observed.

Are there questions of details? Of course there are. Are there questions concerning what happened in the very, very early universe (before a second into the current expansion phase)? Absolutely.

But there is no doubt at this point that *everywhere* in the universe that we can access information from was hot and dense enough so that nuclear reactions were going on. Furthermore, those reactions did not go to completion, but were 'cut off' by the expansion cooling things to the place they couldn't go further.

And *that* is what the classical Big Bang theory talks about.

OK, I was recalling to a degree what ChristineM was saying in post #45, I believe. She responded, when I asked her if she really knows that the BB began with a very hot cloud of highly compressed plasma:
"Yes, it is known. The history of the universe is known from approximately 10e-42 of a second following the BB. That's many trillions of times faster than the fastest clock tick of the fastest computer." I suppose someone will conjecture how that "compressed plasma" got there...but here's where I'm out of the guessing game and just enjoy hearing some of the answers. I do notice and give credit that she didn't say *she* knows that the BB began with a "very hot cloud of highly compressed plasma," but that "it" is known. I'm not taking this any further now.
Have a good night.

 

[YoursTrue]

I’m not a physicist, so I have no idea. You don’t ask some random guy on the street for information about the intricacies of various artistic movements and philosophies from the 1700s. Why would one expect random people online to explain in exquisite detail the ins and outs of advanced physics or biology?
Seems a bit....well stupid to me.

I suppose one could I dunno, read up what exactly is the Big Bang theory if one was so inclined to learn. It’s not like it’s some super top secret or anything.

Hi. I was referring to ChristineM's answer.
She said in post #45, I believe, after I asked if she *knows* that the Big Bang began with a very hot cloud of highly compressed plasma, "Yes, it is known. The history of the universe is known from approximately 10e-42 of a second following the BB. That's many trillions of times faster than the fastest clock tick of the fastest computer." Anyway, as I said, I'm not taking this any further right now, particularly since some really believe they *know* how it all started, kind of, more or less.
You, too, have a good night.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
When did I ever claim anything else?
...

Then we agree

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Nothing more, nothing less. But as far as i know not thinking about a god doesn't actually take any thinking and so no chemical reaction.

All human thinking not matter what are chemical whether meaningful or meaningless. You have just removed any distinction in this debate.
Someone to me: What did ChristineM and you debate?
Me: Nothing really, there are no differences worth mentioning as it is all chemical reactions.

Bravo, you have just turned it into something without a distinction worth mentioning.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I did not say "underlying logic" i said the universe is logical, please do not misrepresent what i say

So 2 of you can't even agree about the connection between the universe and logic.
Take it up with @ratiocinator

 

[gnostic]

Essentially Explain concept of Evolution "if valid" preceding Creationism.

Oh, I like games.

It’s "fish and chips"!

No?

It’s "bacon and eggs"!

No? I am wrong again...?

Let me think...

Oh, I’ve got it!

It’s "the pellet with the poison's in the vessel with the pestle; the chalice from the palace has the brew that is true!"

 

[SomeRandom]

Hi. I was referring to ChristineM's answer.
She said in post #45, I believe, after I asked if she *knows* that the Big Bang began with a very hot cloud of highly compressed plasma, "Yes, it is known. The history of the universe is known from approximately 10e-42 of a second following the BB. That's many trillions of times faster than the fastest clock tick of the fastest computer." Anyway, as I said, I'm not taking this any further right now, particularly since some really believe they *know* how it all started, kind of, more or less.
You, too, have a good night.

I don’t mean to speak for ChristineM, but I’m pretty sure they have a background in science.
And well Scientists tend to know about science-y things.
Don’t ask me how it works, I’m more of literature nerd, but they test these things.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don’t mean to speak for ChristineM, but I’m pretty sure they have a background in science.
And well Scientists tend to know about science-y things.
Don’t ask me how it works, I’m more of literature nerd, but they test these things.

LOL, my first laugh tonight, I won't ask you how it works, so far I haven't seen any testing though. But -- maybe they do.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I was thinking something similar as you state above. The universe doesn't think, but lack of logic emerged from ?? lack of logic?? That doesn't make sense, does it. At least to me it doesn't make sense. Perhaps someone wants to make up (suppose, surmise, or guess) about unicells and how they grew (emerged and continued thereon) from something with or without universal logic.

Now we are really out there in la-la land, where it gets weird.

I will break it down in parts.
Part 1:
Subjectivity in biological terms. Forget for a moment makes sense or not, we haven't gotten to that yet. We have several factors at play and first off subjectivity in biological terms.
Here is an example. Within zooplankton there are some species, which move up and down in the water-column depending on the amount of UV-light. Others don't.

So how to explain that using cause and effect? Well, the energy in the UV-light doesn't as such cause movement.
For the species, who react to UV-light, there are receptors, which sends signals, which triggers a downward movement, when there are high amounts of UV-light.
Look at it this way - the subjectivity is a result of genes, which results in cells, which results in behavior, which can't be explained with only external factors; i.e. e.g. UV-light.

Does that make sense? If yes, read part 2. If no, explain your understanding.

Part 2:
Now you see it, now you don't!
Sometimes people will ask me to show something to them. But I can't in the strict sense of showing, because they can't see it as seeing. They can understand it, but that is an internal process in a given brain.
I can show you a dog, but I can't show you that 2+2=11.
Some people then demand the following of me. I must use objective empirical observation on everything and I answer: No!
Now it gets really weird. A word is a sign, with a meaning in a brain and it is about something. So all words for which, what they are about, are objective, not in brains and not subjective? Just answer: No!
Sometimes words are about internal processes in brains, which are subjective in biological terms.

It is easy to check. Take a stone, - a part of a rock and all that. You can see it, hold it, do a lot with it in regards to your body as a body. You can use scientific tests on it and so on.
Now do the same with the word "meaningless". Now you see it, now you don't!

Part 3:
How subjectivity relates to logic?
And again we are doing weird. We are playing non-reductive emergent properties. Such a "critter" is a word, which can't be fully understood based on words, which are based on objective empirical observation. So there are 2 categories, which are important. Positives and negatives. Again test the words - internal or external. See, hold and so on or not.
So now do it with the words "yes" and "no". Then go wider, all positives and negatives are internal and have no objective empirical observational referent.
Now look at this:
"Contradictory propositions cannot both be true 'at the same time and in the same sense.'"
Then check the words for how they connect to what they are about and where that happens.

Part 4:
Logic is a behavior in humans. It is not a thing, it is a process in brains and computers.
So is the universe logic or not? Neither, because it is to simple a question. The universe is neither logic nor illogical as the universe. Logic is an non-reductive emergent behavior in humans, which is subjective. It is local and only found in some lifeforms and computers. It is natural all right, it is just subjective.

Part 5:
2 factor explanations for which one factor is true and the other false.
Some people do that a lot when it comes to the universe. They project their subjectivity unto the universe as such and demand that the universe must make sense. But that is in them subjectively and they are in effect rationalists and platonic idealists. The universe as the universe must make sense with reason and logic. I.e. the universe must be true, add up in a positive sense or it is false, meaningless.

That is in them subjectively. There is no out there in the universe as a property of the universe that it makes sense. The universe neither makes sense nor doesn't make sense.
Just as I can't show them a god, they can't show me that the universe makes sense. They can spot the subjectivity in other humans, but they can't spot it in themselves. Now you see it, now you don't!

Hi, welcome to the la-la land of subjectivity and weirdness.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[YoursTrue]

Now we are really out there in la-la land, where it gets weird.
...

Hi, welcome to the la-la land of subjectivity and weirdness.

Regards
Mikkel

Wow, I see that. I thank you for your answer and although I go slowly, I hope to go over your answer tomorrow, well really later today, with as fine a comb as possible.

 

[ratiocinator]

Then we agree

We agree about one thing that I never claimed or said anything about and is totally unconnected to the previous conversation, yes.

You really aren't very good at all this reasoning malarkey, are you?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We agree about one thing that I never claimed or said anything about and is totally unconnected to the previous conversation, yes.

You really aren't very good at all this reasoning malarkey, are you?

The universe is with underlying logic,logically self-consistent. That might be true, but it is so simple. The universe is a lot messier than that when we include humans and that includes you and I.
So here it is with Agrippa the Skeptic and the first trope:

Dissent – The uncertainty demonstrated by the differences of opinions among philosophers(today scientists) and people in general.

You can claim all you like authority over what the universe really is and if I can do that differently, your absolute universal rule for what the universe really is, doesn't quite works as you believe.
Logic breaks down for 2 humans, because there are 2 humans and that is neither logical nor illogical. Logic is a human behavior, which has limits just like human mobility. I can't fly as fly solely by using my body.
And you can't turn all of the universe including humans into positive logic as logically self-consistent. I just do it differently as a human than you do.

The universe includes humans as subjective and you can't turn that into just and only with reason, logic AND(strong logical and) objective empirical evidence. Science has a limit.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
Look up useful. It is useful for you to think as you do and it is useful for me to do it differently. That works in both directions and you can't use logic on that.
If you look closer science can inform you that humans are in part subjective and that is the limit of science as a human behaviour. You can't turn everything into being objective and logical, because I just answer: No!

It would be nice, if we could turn humans into objective, physical processes and pure logic. But that is not how it works in practice. And that it doesn't make sense to you, are in you as subjective and not in the rest of the universe.
There is no meaning, purpose and makes sense in the universe outside human cognition. Just as there are no gods.

The reason science can't do this as a methodology used by humans, is that science is objective and these are subjective:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

Creationists are subjective and they don't quite get that. But so are all humans in part and that includes you and I.
I take it you are related to if not from STEM. Okay, fine. I am not from that. I am from in the end the messy part of the universe. How to understand human subjectivity subjectively.
I never play nice, when you and your kind go objective and logical, because I just go subjective and without logic in part.

So then to the limit of your idea, is that your idea is to simple and it can't explain subjectivity in humans.

 

[ratiocinator]

I never play nice, when you and your kind go objective and logical, because I just go subjective and without logic in part.

Don't quite see why you think that's a good idea - makes you look a little foolish, if you want my opinion. Neither does trying to use a logical process like reductio ad absurdum seem very consistent with it.

So then to the limit of your idea, is that your idea is to simple and it can't explain subjectivity in humans.

Another bold assertion.

The thing is that you can link to your inane article about what science doesn't do, and jump from subject to subject each time your ideas get knocked down but the fact remains that science does do some things very, very successfully - and the results work for everybody regardless of their subjective beliefs about it (which is how you are talking to me). The history of the universe is exactly the sort of thing science does.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Don't quite see why you think that's a good idea - makes you look a little foolish, if you want my opinion. Neither does trying to use a logical process like reductio ad absurdum seem very consistent with it.

...

Really look hard at the bold part and you will notice something. You are subjective and use feelings/emotions. You are not objective, with reason and logic, and objective empirical observation. You are there a subjective human and so am I.
You have just proved my case, because you end up being subjective and using feelings/emotions. Look at this one
Do you get what you did?
You in effect said the following: I, ratiocinator, don't understand your, Mikkel's, understanding and it doesn't make sense to me subjectively.

You in effect as a part of the universe "retreated" all the way "down" to your first person individual understanding and based on that, declared that I look foolish. But I am not foolish, because you can't see that. That I am foolish is not in me, it is a feeling/emotion in you. You judged me to be something I am not.

Don't play this game with a general skeptic. It always ends here. You retreated all the way down to cognitive relativism and didn't notice that. But I did, I am a general skeptic and I can spot that.

The universe were, are and will be a lot of interconnected processes and nobody as a human can remove human subjectivity as one of the processes. You tried and you failed. I have also tried in the past and I noticed that I failed, so now I just point this out.
We are playing we as humans in the universe with only reason, logic and objective empirical observation. And I just point out that I do it differently that you and then I get feelings/emotions back. That was not the first time I encountered that and it won't be the last.

 

[ratiocinator]

Really look hard at the bold part and you will notice something. You are subjective and use feelings/emotions. You are not objective, with reason and logic, and objective empirical observation.

Wow - you noticed! Perhaps is was my use of the word "opinion" that gave it away...

You have just proved my case...

Your case? Which one? You keep on changing your claims. If you mean that everything is subjective, then no, I obviously didn't.

My case is fully intact - and you're basically ignoring it.

Don't play this game with a general skeptic. It always ends here.

With them making unsupported assertions, making a mess of attempts at logic, having their claims knocked down, skipping from subject to subject to avoid admitting it, and being unable to tackle the actual argument against them, you mean?

The universe were, are and will be a lot of interconnected processes and nobody as a human can remove human subjectivity as one of the processes. You tried and you failed.

I didn't try. Ho hum... if you can't tackle what's actually being said, make a strawman and knock that down, eh?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Your case? Which one? You keep on changing your claims. If you mean that everything is subjective, then no, I obviously didn't.
...

Okay, everything it is as X and not non-X as Y.

Everything is from God. No, because humans are not gods.
Everything is nothing but physical. No, because we also have the mental, psychology.
Everything is objective. No, right now I am subjective.
Everything is subjective. No, because you can't control everything with your brain/body alone.
Everything is logical.

Now let us look closer at reductio ad absurdum. You were right, I didn't use it in its strict sense. I used it in its broad sense.
So everything is not strictly logical as all cases are the same without contradiction, because we can't reduce everything down to just the same.
Everything is the same with logic. No, different.

No matter how irrational, illogical and all those other negatives I am, if I am that, then it is a fact for a part of the universe and that is the limit of with only reason, logic and objective empirical evidence. That is the broad use of reduction ad absurdum.

You demand logic for everything and then complain that I am illogical. But that is in the broad sense the reductio ad absurdum. If everything in toto is logical and not just your version of underlying, then I ask: What is above the underlying? Right, humans. And now it gets messy.
I look foolish to some humans and I don't mind. I am an Aspie and I am weird. My brain doesn't function like yours and yet we both have a life. And I am 55 now and used to being irrational, illogical and what not, because I am still here.

I am as a human the reduction ad absurdum to your life. But I am still here.
You are not everything nor nothing, You are something and I am something else.
We have been playing "everything, something, something else and/or nothing" in toto.
The universe is not something and I am something else to your something. Now deal with that. I am still here, no matter how absurd that is to you, because I am not you.