Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[Milton Platt]

I agree that many people do blindly follow either scientists or religious leaders without examining the facts for themselves. Belief in evolution is an act of faith, IMO, and often an act of blind faith. On the other hand, many believe the earth was created a few thousand years ago in six 24-hour days, simply because their religious leaders tell them to. Both beliefs are accepted without convincing evidence, IMO.

I think evolution has a huge amount of evidence. The fact that some people believe scientists without spending their lives digesting thousands of technical papers in no way reflects on science or scientists that do the work. The evidence that the scientific method is reliable is in evidence all around us...it permeates our lives.

 

[gnostic]

I think evolution has a huge amount of evidence. The fact that some people believe scientists without spending their lives digesting thousands of technical papers in no way reflects on science or scientists that do the work. The evidence that the scientific method is reliable is in evidence all around us...it permeates our lives.

I agree that many people do blindly follow either scientists or religious leaders without examining the facts for themselves.

I don't think rusra02 understand science at all, Milton.

He doesn't understand that scientists are required to refute any statement made or presented through (A) testing or experiment, or (B) finding evidence, through the process of Scientific Method.

It is the testing or evidences that will either refute the statement as being FALSE, or verify the statement as being TRUE. One test or one evidence doesn't determine that it is true or false:

1. the tests or experiments need to be repeated a number of time by the scientists who made the statements or independently by third-party, eg the peers,
2. OR more than one evidence need to be discovered that will verify or refute the statement

The x-numbers of test results and x-numbers of evidences are required, not only to verify or to refute the hypothesis or theory, but to make sure that first positive or negative finding was not a fluke or in error.

This is how scientists determine which statement (hypothesis or theory) are "fact" and which are "not fact".

What rusra02 can't seem to grasp, is that the scientific evidences found is what determine it to be "fact".

He (rusra02) cannot understand that if scientists find evidences, then the statements (whether it be scientific hypothesis or scientific theory) is not taking it on faith.

This actually mean rusra02 doesn't know what faith" mean too. Or it could mean that rusra02 is trying to confuse people, through misinformation and propaganda. So I wouldn't put pass him for being dishonest or lack integrity, because the biblical creationists are most dishonest group of people I have ever met.

As you and others before you who had replied to rusra02, there are enough evidences to be found that validate the theory of evolution as well-substantiated explanation for biological changes over a number of generations (hence time), though one of the following mechanisms - Mutation, Genetic Drift, Gene Flow and Natural Selection.

Finding evidences showed that evolution is not based on faith.

 

[NoorNoor]

I am playing the role of defender of infinite regress here. What I believe about causality is not relevant, in this role.

You make an argument that you don't believe. You argue that infinite regress explain every thing and everything has a cause in its past (with no exception), but you neither believe in infinite regress nor causality. You don't even believe in any absolute causeless fact. In other words, you neither believe in causality nor causeless facts. What are you arguing for? what do you believe?

You want me to prove wrong a logical fallacy that neither I nor you believe? Why would any further proof be required? That's illogical. If you want to know why infinite regress is logically fallacious, search "homunculus fallacy".

Ditto. I would just like to know what is so outlandish about infinite regres

If things are neither caused nor causeless, then nothing can exist. That's illogical.

I can easily show you how causality might not exist at fundamental level. But that would be material for another thread. Here I would like to know what is so irrational about infinite regress, if causality exists. Maybe you are right, but you have to show it to me. I am sure you do not expect I accept your proclaims without challenge.

As i said, Causality is a fundamental fact. Both classical physics and the theory of relativity confirm causality.

Causality accounts for the influences that impose changes at given points to create a meaningful model. Without causality, there are no changes, no beginnings, no ends.

Infinite regress necessarily means that any point is equal to any point with exact same past and future. No starts or ends. Not even repetitive loops because it necessarily depends on distinctive beginning/end which can't exist in infinite regression. All effects would have reached it's ultimate destination at every or any single point. It would translate to a kind of unrealistic meaningless steady state.

Whats your view of causality?

Nope. We don't know to have reached the limits of our physical realm, whatever that means. After all, physicists are spending a lot of time and money (including a bit of your taxes) to study exactly that. So, this claim of yours is wishful thinking and question begging. It assumes that there are limits to the physical realm. Maybe there are, maybe there are not.

Do you doubt that our knowledge and ability to observe has limits?
The question is not whether these limits exists (it does) but rather what are these limits? Our knowledge points to the singularity as the limit. A threshold that can't be passed.

You make wishful speculations about unknown future and ignore what was already established. Yet, you consider my claim to be wishful thinking not yours. That's illogical. We don't know what kind of knowledge we may attain in the future and whether this knowledge would support one claim or another. regardless, our knowledge would always stop at a threshold that can't be passed. this threshold does not impose any limitation on the absolute existence.

 

[NoorNoor]

It seems logical to me that everything be reducible to the most simple thing which could represent some sort of on or off (or positive and negative) states -and some force to cause or generate on and off states which could then develop into patterns -so on and so forth....

...which would mean that everything is essentially exactly the same thing in various arrangements -including ourselves.

The force may cause on and off states. Multiple configurations of states would evolve in various arrangements. Meaning, the states evolve not the initial force. The first cause/force exerts an influence but doesn't evolve since its not subject to (physical) causation.

 

[psychoslice]

Evolution and creation, well one is made up just a story, and the other made up by facts, just take your pick.

 

[viole]

You make an argument that you don't believe. You argue that infinite regress explain every thing and everything has a cause in its past (with no exception), but you neither believe in infinite regress nor causality. You don't even believe in any absolute causeless fact. In other words, you neither believe in causality nor causeless facts. What are you arguing for? what do you believe?

You want me to prove wrong a logical fallacy that neither I nor you believe? Why would any further proof be required? That's illogical. If you want to know why infinite regress is logically fallacious, search "homunculus fallacy".

Of course I can do that. Because disbelieving in X, does not entail that X is logically impossible. If someone tells me that Superman is impossible, then I call her out, even if I do not believe in Superman.

Don't confuse logic with the laws of our Universe. The first is a much vaster superset of the latter. And since you seem to claim that it is impossible, I am challenging your claim, not wethere this Universe is the instance of infinite regress.

And some infinite regresses are problematic. For instance the ones that include causal loops. But I would like to leave them out at the moment (although the possible existence of relativistic time loops might reopen the discussion). So, please show it to me, with your thougth and not google's, how it is fallacious in general.

If things are neither caused nor causeless, then nothing can exist. That's illogical.

I never said that. I said that causality does not exist. Ergo, all things, at least at fundamental level, are causeless. But let's stay focused. Challenging causality has no place in this discussion. We need first to ascertain whether infinite regress is logically impossible, under the assumption of causality.

As i said, Causality is a fundamental fact. Both classical physics and the theory of relativity confirm causality.

Ditto. You can open another thread is you want.

Causality accounts for the influences that impose changes at given points to create a meaningful model. Without causality, there are no changes, no beginnings, no ends.

Ditto.

Infinite regress necessarily means that any point is equal to any point with exact same past and future. No starts or ends. Not even repetitive loops because it necessarily depends on distinctive beginning/end which can't exist in infinite regression. All effects would have reached it's ultimate destination at every or any single point. It would translate to a kind of unrealistic meaningless steady state.

That is very fuzzy. Having no starts nor end does not entail being logically impossible. Geometry, for instance, is full of things that have no start nor end. And I doubt that they would be illogical.

Do you doubt that our knowledge and ability to observe has limits?
The question is not whether these limits exists (it does) but rather what are these limits? Our knowledge points to the singularity as the limit. A threshold that can't be passed.

You make wishful speculations about unknown future and ignore what was already established. Yet, you consider my claim to be wishful thinking not yours. That's illogical. We don't know what kind of knowledge we may attain in the future and whether this knowledge would support one claim or another. regardless, our knowledge would always stop at a threshold that can't be passed. this threshold does not impose any limitation on the absolute existence.

Again, I am not addressing nomological issues, nor our Universe nor our knowledge about the Universe, singularity, Big Bang, steady state, or whathever. I am addressing the so-called fallacy of invoking infinite regress to explain things.

There are three complete and mutually excluding possibilities here (under the assumption of causality):

1) infinite regress is logically impossible (and therefore our Universe, or any other conceivable Universe, cannot be the result thereof)
2) infinite regress is possible and our Universe is the result thereof
3) infinite regress is possible but our Universe is not the result thereof

So, it is very simple. I hold position 3). If you hold that too, then we can close the discussion immediately. However, if you hold 1) you have to justify your claim, I am afraid.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Zosimus]

Well, then show to me how infinite regress would be indefensible. Independently from whether I believe it or not.
At the moment, I am just reading empty proclaims without any substance.

Ciao

- viole

All right. Let's imagine that you have a test for some new disease. You want to determine that this test is 95 percent reliable for detecting the disease. How do you do so?

Well, I suppose that this test (Let's call it A) can be checked against another test (Let's call that B). So perhaps it matches up with test B 95 percent of the time. But how do we know test B is reliable? Is that checked against test C, which is checked against test D, which is checked against test E? How do I know that test E is accurate? Compare it to test F? What happens when I run out of letters in the alphabet? Do you really think that knowledge can be gained in this manner?

Infinite regress as a method of gaining knowledge is a priori false. All one has to do is to think rationally about the situation and one will come up with that answer.

 

[viole]

All right. Let's imagine that you have a test for some new disease. You want to determine that this test is 95 percent reliable for detecting the disease. How do you do so?

Well, I suppose that this test (Let's call it A) can be checked against another test (Let's call that B). So perhaps it matches up with test B 95 percent of the time. But how do we know test B is reliable? Is that checked against test C, which is checked against test D, which is checked against test E? How do I know that test E is accurate? Compare it to test F? What happens when I run out of letters in the alphabet? Do you really think that knowledge can be gained in this manner?

Infinite regress as a method of gaining knowledge is a priori false. All one has to do is to think rationally about the situation and one will come up with that answer.

I did not ask whether infinite regress is a valid epistemological tool. I asked what is logically impossible about that, in principle. It could be possible, but simply unable to generate doctors that need epistemological tools.

So, your reply is a non sequitur. Obviously.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Etritonakin]

Evolution and creation, well one is made up just a story, and the other made up by facts, just take your pick.

Both evolution and creation exist.
Some creationist ideas are made up stories, but the fact that you are presently unable to perceive beyond certain points -that you can only presently perceive evolution first and then creation/creativity as a result -is certainly not proof that no other instances of creation/creativity preceded earthly evolution.
Humanity is actually proof of the possibility of element-based evolution having been caused by a creative mind -as we pretty much have the power to cause it elsewhere.
We reverse-engineered it -but a creative mind quite possibly engineered it.
That is not to say earthly evolution could not have happened on earth without direct creative influence -but it is also true that creative influence may be indirect -and quite far removed.
Once we caused evolution elsewhere, another species might develop the same capability -so on -so forth.
Element-based evolution may have been written by a creative mind into the design of the singularity we call the big bang -possibly happening on a great number of planets or elsewhere, for all we know.
For all we know, however, it is possible that creative influence was required for evolution to begin on earth.
We can conceive of it happening by a specific chain of natural events -but we really have not proved that it was the case beyond any doubt.

An initial creativity would have to involve evolution in its broadest sense -but what's wrong with that?

Evolution -in its broadest sense -and creativity are essentially inextricable.

 

[psychoslice]

Both evolution and creation exist.
Some creationist ideas are made up stories, but the fact that you are presently unable to perceive beyond certain points -that you can only presently perceive evolution first and then creation/creativity as a result -is certainly not proof that no other instances of creation/creativity preceded earthly evolution.
Humanity is actually proof of the possibility of element-based evolution having been caused by a creative mind -as we pretty much have the power to cause it elsewhere.
That is not to say earthly evolution could not have happened on earth without direct creative influence -but it is also true that creative influence may be indirect -and quite far removed.
Once we caused evolution elsewhere, another species might develop the same capability -so on -so forth.
Element-based evolution may have been written by a creative mind into the design of the singularity we call the big bang -possibly happening on a great number of planets or elsewhere, for all we know.
For all we know, however, it is possible that creative influence was required for evolution to begin on earth.
We can conceive of it happening by a specific chain of natural events -but we really have not proved that it was the case beyond any doubt.

Who or what do you think started this creation, is it a personal god that lives up in the sky ?.

 

[Etritonakin]

Who or what do you think started this creation, is it a personal god that lives up in the sky ?.

from last edit of above....

"An initial creativity would have to involve evolution in its broadest sense -but what's wrong with that?"

"Evolution -in its broadest sense -and creativity are essentially inextricable."

I don't know what you mean by personal God -but as far as living in the sky -no and yes.

God essentially IS everything. IS the sky and everything else -but everything has an overall intelligence.
How God represents himself -essentially within himself -to us, for example, is another story.

An overall intelligence which created individual persons would understandably represent himself in a personal way. Christ, for example, existed in -represented himself to us by -many bodies and forms.... the high priest Melchizedek, the glorious being seen by Moses, pillars of fire and smoke, Jesus of Nazareth, etc.

Whether you believe in God or not, the same question must be answered. Who or what started this creation?

 

[psychoslice]

from last edit of above....

"An initial creativity would have to involve evolution in its broadest sense -but what's wrong with that?"

"Evolution -in its broadest sense -and creativity are essentially inextricable."

I don't know what you mean by personal God -but as far as living in the sky -no and yes.

God essentially IS everything. IS the sky and everything else -but everything has an overall intelligence.
How God represents himself -essentially within himself -to us, for example, is another story.

Whether you believe in God or not, the same question must be answered. Who or what started this creation?

Yes I see this word God as all there is, so really why separate all there is into a concept called god, that only confuses the whole thing, why cannot the Cosmos which is One, be the creator, not someone or something, but the Cosmos, now doesn't that sound better ?.

 

[Etritonakin]

Yes I see this word God as all there is, so really why separate all there is into a concept called god, that only confuses the whole thing, why cannot the Cosmos which is One, be the creator, not someone or something, but the Cosmos, now doesn't that sound better ?.

Depends how you define Cosmos. As God made of himself something very intricate -separating all there was into all that is and will be -an accurate description of him -or definition of "God" -would be something gained over time.
God is both someone and something -the one by whom all things consist. He is also essentially everyone and everything. As the original -the creator -he'd be the one to ask what to call him or how to describe him.
For now we have human languages -different words to call him or describe him -but later we will be given a pure language based on his overall perspective.

Joh 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

Zep 3:9 For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

 

[psychoslice]

Depends how you define Cosmos. As God made of himself something very intricate -separating all there was into all that is and will be -an accurate description of him -or definition of "God" -would be something gained over time.
God is both someone and something -the one by whom all things consist. He is also essentially everyone and everything. As the original -the creator -he'd be the one to ask what to call him or how to describe him.
For now we have human languages -different words to call him or describe him -but later we will be given a pure language based on his overall perspective.

Joh 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

Zep 3:9 For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

Yes I can see God being this Oneness of all there is, but when we reduce this Oneness into a label, such as he, or father, it then becomes personal, as if he is someone living seprate somewhere out there, because of this we then divide this Oneness into many belief systems that all argue over who has the right system, it really makes a joke out of this Oneness, and to me this is the true meaning of blasphemy.

 

[Etritonakin]

Yes I can see God being this Oneness of all there is, but when we reduce this Oneness into a label, such as he, or father, it then becomes personal, as if he is someone living seprate somewhere out there, because of this we then divide this Oneness into many belief systems that all argue over who has the right system, it really makes a joke out of this Oneness, and to me this is the true meaning of blasphemy.

That is assuming we gave the label. What God calls himself and what men argue about are two separate things

Let God be God and every man a liar.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean -but God divided his overall self into many persons by causing parts of his overall self to be separated -granting separate processing ability -separate wills -power over a part of the overall creation, etc. (I call it a sort of multiple personality order)
-so while he is still essentially everywhere, he is still able to separate himself by isolating himself -or us from him -in various ways.

God is described by Christ as "The Father" because it imparts an understanding that he has a similar role as an earthly father -more correctly, that an earthly father is representative of God's role (though not all do it well) -and God specifically created it so. The things of God are made apparent in what was made -including the male/female/family relationship. By being called Father, we understand that he will raise us, love us, teach us and discipline us, etc. That does not mean his is not much more than an earthly father.

 

[psychoslice]

That is assuming we gave the label. What God calls himself and what men argue about are two separate things

Let God be God and every man a liar.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean -but God divided his overall self into many persons by causing parts of his overall self to be separated -granting separate processing ability -separate wills -power over a part of the overall creation, etc. (I call it a sort of multiple personality order)
-so while he is still essentially everywhere, he is still able to separate himself by isolating himself -or us from him -in various ways.

Yes, but I see this God as all there is, its what everything is, we also are part of God or the Cosmos, we cannot be separate even if we try, its only our minds that separate us from the Source, and its our minds that have made up religion, and has also made god in our own image, the scriptures are simply story made up by these people who separate the Source from who we truly are, and make it seem that we have to crawl back to who we already are, to realize this is to wake up to the Cosmic joke, and have a good laugh lol.

 

[Etritonakin]

Yes, but I see this God as all there is, its what everything is, we also are part of God or the Cosmos, we cannot be separate even if we try, its only our minds that separate us from the Source, and its our minds that have made up religion, and has also made god in our own image, the scriptures are simply story made up by these people who separate the Source from who we truly are, and make it seem that we have to crawl back to who we already are, to realize this is to wake up to the Cosmic joke, and have a good laugh lol.

"the scriptures are simply story made up by these people who separate the Source from who we truly are"

That is an assumption which I have seen to be incorrect. You see from your perspective now -but things will take place which will cause your perspective -everyone's perspective -to change.
Of course, you cannot believe what you cannot believe until you can and do -so -from that perspective -it will happen or it will not.
My perspective often changes -but some parts of it cannot change because they are absolutely true.
What is good to do is more readily apparent than what is true overall -and the particulars are not all as important.

 

[psychoslice]

"the scriptures are simply story made up by these people who separate the Source from who we truly are"

That is an assumption which I have seen to be incorrect. You see from your perspective now -but things will take place which will cause your perspective -everyone's perspective -to change.
Of course, you cannot believe what you cannot believe until you can and do -so -from that perspective -it will happen or it will not.
My perspective often changes -but some parts of it cannot change because they are absolutely true.
What is good to do is more readily apparent than what is true overall -and the particulars are not all as important.

And I see my side as truth you see religion wont let you think that way, it will make you believe that you have the truth and everyone else doesn't, its like how many people like different sports, and being in one of those particular sports believing your own sport is the only true sport.

 

[Etritonakin]

And I see my side as truth you see religion wont let you think that way, it will make you believe that you have the truth and everyone else doesn't, its like how many people like different sports, and being in one of those particular sports believing your own sport is the only true sport.

I do not believe that. I believe everyone knows truths everyone else does not.... including me -but also that the truth is greater than all we all know.

I believe that God has the truth -and reveals it as he wills.

Some can know things others do not -that is the nature of individual perspectives.

I know I could learn much from everyone -so I consider as much as possible.

 

[NoorNoor]

Of course I can do that. Because disbelieving in X, does not entail that X is logically impossible. If someone tells me that Superman is impossible, then I call her out, even if I do not believe in Superman.

Don't confuse logic with the laws of our Universe. The first is a much vaster superset of the latter. And since you seem to claim that it is impossible, I am challenging your claim, not wethere this Universe is the instance of infinite regress.

And some infinite regresses are problematic. For instance the ones that include causal loops. But I would like to leave them out at the moment (although the possible existence of relativistic time loops might reopen the discussion). So, please show it to me, with your thougth and not google's, how it is fallacious in general.

You can argue something you don't believe but the argument should be logical.
If you provide false reasons that you personally don't accept to support your argument, then there is nothing to argue for.

I never said that. I said that causality does not exist. Ergo, all things, at least at fundamental level, are causeless. But let's stay focused. Challenging causality has no place in this discussion. We need first to ascertain whether infinite regress is logically impossible, under the assumption of causality.

I think our views are not that different at all. Lets just organize our thoughts a little bit. I understand you accept the following: (I accept the same)

1) all things, at least at fundamental level, are causeless.
2) Causality is a fundamental fact. Both classical physics and the theory of relativity confirm causality.

1 & 2 appear to be contradictory. How can both be true? The answer is, things at fundamental level are causeless because the first case itself (only) is causeless. All effects appeared because of a first causeless cause, that necessarily mean things at fundamental level are causeless but beyond that level, all effects are caused as evidenced/confirmed by both classical physics and the theory of relativity.

If you don't agree with this view, then how can both 1 and 2 be true?

That is very fuzzy. Having no starts nor end does not entail being logically impossible. Geometry, for instance, is full of things that have no start nor end. And I doubt that they would be illogical.

a closed polygon or circle would appear not to have a specific start or end as an analogy to circular logic. Infinite regress is not a closed loop but rather an open loop with no start or end to define it.

Again, I am not addressing nomological issues, nor our Universe nor our knowledge about the Universe, singularity, Big Bang, steady state, or whathever

Application of logic on real world examples explains the validity of the logic. Its true that logic is vaster than any physical application but Logic does manifest itself in every thing around us.

I am addressing the so-called fallacy of invoking infinite regress to explain things.

There are three complete and mutually excluding possibilities here (under the assumption of causality):

1) infinite regress is logically impossible (and therefore our Universe, or any other conceivable Universe, cannot be the result thereof)
2) infinite regress is possible and our Universe is the result thereof
3) infinite regress is possible but our Universe is not the result thereof

Infinite regress is based on the principal that all items have to be finite and caused (with no exception) but to the contrary, it uses infinite causeless process (with no beginning) to prove that all items are finite /caused. In addition, If the distinctive beginning for the physical world is lost through infinite regression, then all points are necessarily equal. There are no distinctive points to create distinctive beginnings or ends.

The need for the "infinite /causeless cause" to account for the existence of all effects, is unavoidable but it's not the process, The process doesn't create the effect, the cause does.