Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[rusra02]

Why go with the outliers??? What papers have they published, or research done to establish another theory that comprehensively include all of the available evidence, including geological, paleological, biological, etc.? The vast majority of scientists agree on the theory of evolution, even if they may disagree on some of the details from time to time. When they can provide evidence that shows that nature does not conform to the laws of nature (an absurd statement), then maybe they will have something.

The research being done is being made available on the Internet. Surely you know this. Time and time again, what the so-called "outliers" have discovered gives the lie to macro-evolution.

 

[metis]

The idea that evolution somehow miraculously stops at the "macro-" level is nothing short of sheer nonsense that even a freshman student who takes even one class in genetics could tell one. If it were to be true, then geneticists should overwhelmingly be all in on declaring "Macro-evolution is stupid!"-- but guess what.

And even though some just like to ignore the overwhelming scientific consensus on this, these same people ignore the research already done clearly showing that speciation has and still does happen and it has been observed over and over again. Since "speciation" by definition involves the formation of new species, it is "macro-evolution".

 

[Sapiens]

Like I said, evolutionist propagandists attack people, calling them liars, rather than address the evidence that proves macroevolution is simply false. For example, your claim I "plagiarized" my post. I was, in fact, quoting from the reference in the post, labeled (g9/06) Then, rather then address Lonnig's evidence, you seek to redirect from the evidence that he presented. Who is really being dishonest here?

When people lie they need to be called on it. Repeating something that has been shown to be an untruth is a form of lying. I withdraw my accusation of plagiarism, but I do note that "g9/06" is rather meaningless to most of the human race. Similarly Loning presents no evidence worth of that term and you might as well be conducting an appeal to authority by citing Daffy Duck.

 

[Sapiens]

The research being done is being made available on the Internet. Surely you know this. Time and time again, what the so-called "outliers" have discovered gives the lie to macro-evolution.

Gee ... the internet, really? Care to cite some?

The outliers are just that, extremists with views that are not supported by mainstream science. Surely you know that.

Time and time again they have been show to be the kooks and quacks that they are, never have they put forward a substantial. supportable critique of the TOE.

 

[Segev Moran]

To me both are some sort of belief systems. People simply choose to follow one or another not because they are scientists, theologians or have specific compelling evidence but merely because they are free to choose what they believe in and when they choose, most people mainly follow the thoughts or teachings of others that they think can be trusted (whether right or wrong). In that sense, both Evolution and Creationism are similar. What do you think?

Lets start with the fact that Evolution and Creationism are not even trying to explain the same things...

Creationism is a claim of who created the universe and everything in it...
Evolution has nothing to do with what or "who" created life or the universe...
Evolution is a wrapper for the process of how life evolved (from the minute they emerged) from their initial state to the homo species we are today.

More... Creationism is based on stories and beliefs that have no evidence what so ever, not even for parts of it...
Evolution is based on dozens of years and is getting more and more accurate and precise as new evidence is discovered.

So true.. no one knows for sure what happened millions of years ago.. but you can make an assumption (Unlike belief) that is based on what you currently know (Which is based on the evidence you discovered).

Lets take an example:

If you find a cube,
C(reationist) will say: Wow.. GOD made this CUBE... Look at it.. it is so beautiful and fine tuned.. NOTHING other than GOD could have made it!
S(cientist) will say: Hmmm.. Lovely CUBEi wonder how it came to be...

Now lets assume suddenly a Sphere was discovered:

C: WOW!!!! God not only made the CUBE, it also made the SPHERE!!! Amazing this GOD...
S: Wow.. A SPHERE, I Wonder how it came to be.. I Wonder if there is a connection between the CUBE and the SPHERE

Time passes and the scientist discover that the CUBE and SPHERE are made from the same substance.. not only that, they discover similar treats of the two:

C: GOD has made the CUBE and the SPHERE as they are! Fitting just right to our World
S: It seems there is a connection between the two.. I Need to investigate this more, But i think an Idea comes to be...

Again time passes and suddenly 2 new shapes are discovered.. this time they are something of a middle morph stage between the cube and the sphere

C: Wow.. GOD also made all these amazing things.. And each of them must have a meaning.. Or else.. Why would they even be here in the first place? This GOD is a genius!!!!
S: As it seems, There is a direct relation between the way the CUBE looks today and how the SPHERE Looks.. I Wonder if one evolved from the other...

And so on and on..

Today you have Thousands of "Middle" stages of species proving that the assumption that all species are related and derive from a common ancestor is probably true.
It will be very very very surprising if something that falsify the Evolution theory will pop..

AND THE BEAUTY OF IT ALL.. is.. that if something does pop and proves that the evolution is false.. That science will adapt and try to learn the new evidence!!!

Now, When you say Theory in science... Its not like a Theory of an idea... Its a Theory that is backed up with tons of evidence. With countless number of tests and examinations, Its a theory that no other managed to falsify... So it is far from being an Idea that everyone believes to be true (Like..ehmm... Creationism???)

 

[NoorNoor]

Yet, after this nice discussion, I still do not see any logical rebuttal of my infinite regress example that does not strongly assume the PSR in its premises.

So, again, if we do not assume the PSR true, ergo we do not assume that everything needs to be accounted for, what arguments can you show me that my chain is impossible? Until now, your rebuttal is limited to the chain not be able to account for itself. But this defense is not legal, if PSR is not assumed true.

Infinite regress is an acknowledged fallacy whether you see it as such or not.
In your example, every X is caused by the preceding X. Non self necessitation is an intrinsic attribute of every X and the entire chain regardless of how many times you repeat the process. It's illogical to impose a self necessitation capacity on a non self necessitating system. If your question is why can't this example exist, Then simply, it can't exist because it doesn't account for its own existence. not only the existence of every X demands a cause but also the existence of the entire chain demands a non contingent cause.

Argument of the PSR is not my concern but If we compare your example to the PSR, we find that your example demands an explanation for every entity similar to the PSR but the PSR accepts the existence of one self necessitated absolute causeless cause to explain all caused entities. In your case, you take an illogical leap by imposing a self necessitation capacity on the sum of all non self necessitating entities.

The existence of a system that doesn't accounts for its own existence is contingent on a cause and a beginning, your example doesn't acknowledge any beginning for the non self necessitated system.

the understanding that the absolute existence doesn't have any beginning is logical but the absence of the beginning doesn't translate to infinite regression of finite entities but rather entails the existence of the self necessitated entity that exists without any dependency or a need for a beginning/cause.

Once we get over this, you will have completed, if you are lucky, the first few centimeters of the marathon that will lead to a justification of the particular version of God you beleve in

You think it would be my first few centimeters. I think its my last few. The believe in God is a marathon that no one can run with any one. Every individual has to run it alone. Acceptance or denial of God it totally contingent on your free will. Maybe I can point to that door or help unlock it but only you can walk that door. No one else. it's not about convincing. Convincing would involve reasons that takes away your freedom to choose otherwise. It doesn't work this way.

You would see only enough to realize the truth of the existence of God but not enough to force your choice in one direction or another. The visibility of the absolute truth is meant to be in such way that you can see it, yet it doesn't take away your freedom of choice. No matter what, your freedom to choose either way is granted. In other words, it's in your court. No one else controls it. Not even God, simply because he is the one who granted you your freedom to choose. It will not be taken away from you tell the last moment of your live. The end of live is not the end of you but the end of your free will.

Our common ground is logic, but why do we accept logic as a common reliable reference. Doesn't logic itself needs an absolute reference to prove its validity? If you consider the example of Einstein, he accepts God of Spinoza on logical basis. But God of Spinoza is not a religion or a different God, it's only a logical approach that shows the necessity of the existence of God and identifies some of the necessary attributes of God. If the existence of God is not only logical but also necessary, then it can be logically followed by the acceptance of religions.

 

[gnostic]

You think it would be my first few centimeters. I think its my last few. The believe in God is a marathon that no one can run with any one. Every individual has to run it alone. Acceptance or denial of God it totally contingent on your free will. Maybe I can point to that door or help unlock it but only you can walk that door. No one else. it's not about convincing. Convincing would involve reasons that takes away your freedom to choose otherwise. It doesn't work this way.

You would see only enough to realize the truth of the existence of God but not enough to force your choice in one direction or another. The visibility of the absolute truth is meant to be in such way that you can see it, yet it doesn't take away your freedom of choice. No matter what, your freedom to choose either way is granted. In other words, it's in your court. No one else controls it. Not even God, simply because he is the one who granted you your freedom to choose. It will not be taken away from you tell the last moment of your live. The end of live is not the end of you but the end of your free will.

Our common ground is logic, but why do we accept logic as a common reliable reference. Doesn't logic itself needs an absolute reference to prove its validity? If you consider the example of Einstein, he accepts God of Spinoza on logical basis. But God of Spinoza is not a religion or a different God, it's only a logical approach that shows the necessity of the existence of God and identifies some of the necessary attributes of God. If the existence of God is not only logical but also necessary, then it can be logically followed by the acceptance of religions.

Nothing in the Qur'an factually explained science of the universe, of earth, or of life.

The fact that the Qur'an say that Allah created man from clay, showed that the Qur'an is based on borrowing of much older myths, not on science. The earlier myths that describe man being made of clay, can be found in the following texts from Sumer and Babylonia:

1. Epic of Gilgamesh, from Old Babylonian (oldest is in 18th century BCE) to Neo-Babylonian (6th century BCE), with the Standard Version (11 clay tablets) found in the Assyrian library of Ashurbanipal, Nineveh, dated to 7th century BCE. Clay tablets, written in Middle Babylonian cuneiforms 1600 - 1000 BCE) can be found in Hattusa, the Hittite capital, in Ugarit, north-eastern Syria, Megiddo northern Canaan (now Israel), in amaranth, Egypt. Here, the hero and companion of Gilgamesh, was created from clay to stop Gilgamesh's tyrannical rule in Uruk. Tablet X (from Standard Version) contained the flood story.
2. Enûma Eliš (Epic of Creation) is the seven tablets on the war between the older gods (Aspu and Tiamat) and the younger gods (eg Ea (Sumerian Enki) and Marduk), in which Ea was responsible for creating humans from clay and water. It was originally written in Middle Babylonian, between 1750 and 1600 BCE, but there are copies found in library of Ashurbanipal.
3. Epic of Atrahasis, Old Babylonian, dated to about 1800 BCE, contained both the creation of humans from clay, and the flood story. Ea with the help of seven mother goddesses created humans from clay and the blood of slain god.
4. Eridu Genesis, Sumerian clay tablets found in the city of Nippur, dated to about 22nd BCE, contained the original creation of humans from clay (the gods responsible for creation were Enlil, Enki and and the flood story, with Ziusudra being the original hero, building a boat to save his family. The epic of Atrahasis is adaptation of the Eridu Genesis.
5. Enki and Ninmah, a Sumerian clay tablet about god and goddess competing against each other to created better humans from clay.

The Qur'an contained nothing original, nothing new, and based on ancient myths and primitive superstitions, with no scientific basis on fact.

The Qur'an want us to believe in jinns and talking ants.

You can point to the door, but it will have to do with science. Inside that door is just nothing more than you wishful thinking and misguided attempt at mixing science with the Qur'an. I have yet to see you post anything relating to actual science.

 

[viole]

Infinite regress is an acknowledged fallacy whether you see it as such or not.
In your example, every X is caused by the preceding X. Non self necessitation is an intrinsic attribute of every X and the entire chain regardless of how many times you repeat the process. It's illogical to impose a self necessitation capacity on a non self necessitating system. If your question is why can't this example exist, Then simply, it can't exist because it doesn't account for its own existence. not only the existence of every X demands a cause but also the existence of the entire chain demands a non contingent cause.

Argument of the PSR is not my concern but If we compare your example to the PSR, we find that your example demands an explanation for every entity similar to the PSR but the PSR accepts the existence of one self necessitated absolute causeless cause to explain all caused entities. In your case, you take an illogical leap by imposing a self necessitation capacity on the sum of all non self necessitating entities.

The existence of a system that doesn't accounts for its own existence is contingent on a cause and a beginning, your example doesn't acknowledge any beginning for the non self necessitated system.

the understanding that the absolute existence doesn't have any beginning is logical but the absence of the beginning doesn't translate to infinite regression of finite entities but rather entails the existence of the self necessitated entity that exists without any dependency or a need for a beginning/cause.

Nope. All the objects in my chain have a cause, but the chain as a whole does not, necessarily. This is the crux of the problem. I declare here solemnly that the chain itself is a brute fact that does not require explanations. Whether some objects have a causal chain does not assume the PSR. The PSR says that all things require an explanation, and its negation does not entail that no objects have an explanation. You are confusing necessary with sufficient conditions. So, if I do not assume the PSR, I am free to make models that explain parts of a Universe, but not the whole Universe, or chain.

My example simply shows that you have no possible logical rebuttal that does not posit the PSR in its premises. How do I know? Well, your rebuttal was "the chain cannot account for its existence". Which is valid only under the assumption that "everything must be accounted for (either by contingency or nesessity)". Ergo by assuming the PSR in the premises.
But you are not alone. Leibnitz promoted the principle to self evident truth exactly in order to defeat infinite regress. For, infinite regress, without the PSR, is perfectly possible.

And we do not know today whether the PSR is valid or not. Therefore, we do not know today whether my chain, or the Universe, can be a brute fact (without any account for its existence whatsoever) or not.

In other words, you (and Leibnitz) failed to kill my argument on logical grounds only, without positing a (controversial) metaphysical premise.

So, as long as you do not show me how my chain cannot be a brute fact of existence (without assuming PSR), I will consider my claim of infinite regress to be possible.

You think it would be my first few centimeters. I think its my last few. The believe in God is a marathon that no one can run with any one. Every individual has to run it alone. Acceptance or denial of God it totally contingent on your free will. Maybe I can point to that door or help unlock it but only you can walk that door. No one else. it's not about convincing. Convincing would involve reasons that takes away your freedom to choose otherwise. It doesn't work this way.

You would see only enough to realize the truth of the existence of God but not enough to force your choice in one direction or another. The visibility of the absolute truth is meant to be in such way that you can see it, yet it doesn't take away your freedom of choice. No matter what, your freedom to choose either way is granted. In other words, it's in your court. No one else controls it. Not even God, simply because he is the one who granted you your freedom to choose. It will not be taken away from you tell the last moment of your live. The end of live is not the end of you but the end of your free will.

Our common ground is logic, but why do we accept logic as a common reliable reference. Doesn't logic itself needs an absolute reference to prove its validity? If you consider the example of Einstein, he accepts God of Spinoza on logical basis. But God of Spinoza is not a religion or a different God, it's only a logical approach that shows the necessity of the existence of God and identifies some of the necessary attributes of God. If the existence of God is not only logical but also necessary, then it can be logically followed by the acceptance of religions.

Do you have an explanation for your will? For instance, what caused your will to believe in God? And what caused that cause? And what caused that cause that caused you to believe in God? Etc. Is that ultimately necessary, or contingent?
Did it begin to exist without a cause, or is yet another uncaused cause?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Zosimus]

Nope. All the objects in my chain have a cause, but the chain as a whole does not, necessarily. This is the crux of the problem. I declare here solemnly that the chain itself is a brute fact that does not require explanations. Whether some objects have a causal chain does not assume the PSR. The PSR says that all things require an explanation, and its negation does not entail that no objects have an explanation. You are confusing necessary with sufficient conditions. So, if I do not assume the PSR, I am free to make models that explain parts of a Universe, but not the whole Universe, or chain.

My example simply shows that you have no possible logical rebuttal that does not posit the PSR in its premises. How do I know? Well, your rebuttal was "the chain cannot account for its existence". Which is valid only under the assumption that "everything must be accounted for (either by contingency or nesessity)". Ergo by assuming the PSR in the premises.
But you are not alone. Leibnitz promoted the principle to self evident truth exactly in order to defeat infinite regress. For, infinite regress, without the PSR, is perfectly possible.

And we do not know today whether the PSR is valid or not. Therefore, we do not know today whether my chain, or the Universe, can be a brute fact (without any account for its existence whatsoever) or not.

In other words, you (and Leibnitz) failed to kill my argument on logical grounds only, without positing a (controversial) metaphysical premise.

So, as long as you do not show me how my chain cannot be a brute fact of existence (without assuming PSR), I will consider my claim of infinite regress to be possible.



Do you have an explanation for your will? For instance, what caused your will to believe in God? And what caused that cause? And what caused that cause that caused you to believe in God? Etc. Is that ultimately necessary, or contingent?
Did it begin to exist without a cause, or is yet another uncaused cause?

Ciao

- viole

You're mixing your arguments. If something is "a brute fact that does not require explanations(sic)" then we say that it is a priori true or rationally demonstrable. This argument is far from the infinite regress argument. In fact, they are complete opposites.

A priori true is something like "I think therefore I am."

Infinite regress is something like "The Earth stands on the back of a turtle, which is on the back of another turtle, on the back of another turtle... turtles all the way down."

 

[viole]

You're mixing your arguments. If something is "a brute fact that does not require explanations(sic)" then we say that it is a priori true or rationally demonstrable. This argument is far from the infinite regress argument. In fact, they are complete opposites.

A priori true is something like "I think therefore I am."

Infinite regress is something like "The Earth stands on the back of a turtle, which is on the back of another turtle, on the back of another turtle... turtles all the way down."

Of course it is. So?

And Nope. It is not a priori true. It is not necessary, for starters. It could have happened or it could not have happened. With "brute fact" I here define contingent things that do not have any account for their existence. You are also assuming the PSR, I believe.

The fact that my chain happened does not require explanations. It would, if the PSR were true. But we do not know whether it is true. It actually looks weird. So, pending additional proof that the PSR is true and other obvious contradictions, it is still possible.

Still, no logical rebuttal of the "turtles all the way down" scenario, that go beyond psychological incredulity or the assumption of a controversial premise.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Zosimus]

Of course it is. So?

And Nope. It is not a priori true. It is not necessary, for starters. It could have happened or it could not have happened. With "brute fact" I here define contingent things that do not have any account for their existence. You are also assuming the PSR, I believe.

The fact that my chain happened does not require explanations. It would, if the PSR were true. But we do not know whether it is true. It actually looks weird. So, pending additional proof that the PSR is true and other obvious contradictions, it is still possible.

Still, no logical rebuttal of the "turtles all the way down" scenario, that go beyond psychological incredulity or the assumption of a controversial premise.

Ciao

- viole

Infinite regress is disproved by the homunculus argument. Unless, of course, you think that there really is a homunculus inside your brain seeing through your eyes. It wouldn't surprise me.

 

[viole]

Infinite regress is disproved by the homunculus argument. Unless, of course, you think that there really is a homunculus inside your brain seeing through your eyes. It wouldn't surprise me.

It is not. Unless you show me with your words what contradiction it leads to.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Zosimus]

It is not. Unless you show me with your words what contradiction it leads to.

Ciao

- viole

All right. Let's suppose that I bring a creature before you that you have never before seen. It could be an alien, a newly-discovered animal or whatever. We begin to discuss the animal and I say, "The interesting thing about this animal is its homunculus."

How's that? Well, I proceed to explain that this creature, unlike others that you know, sees in an unusual way. What enters into its eyes is actually displayed on a tiny screen in its brain for a homunculus, which is a miniature version of the original creature, to view.

Since this is an unknown creature that you have never seen before, you have no data that will tend to contradict what I have said. Nevertheless, most people will immediately detect that this claim is false. Why? Because it doesn't answer the question. How does the homunculus see then? Well, inside the homunculus there is another homunculus and inside that one another homunculus that has a homunculus inside it.

So on and so on ad infinitum there are an infinite number of homonculi each inside the head of the previous one on and on forever.

You, however, seem to claim that infinite regress is perfectly valid. You, therefore, should believe in the homunculus explanation. If you do not, explain why.

 

[viole]

All right. Let's suppose that I bring a creature before you that you have never before seen. It could be an alien, a newly-discovered animal or whatever. We begin to discuss the animal and I say, "The interesting thing about this animal is its homunculus."

How's that? Well, I proceed to explain that this creature, unlike others that you know, sees in an unusual way. What enters into its eyes is actually displayed on a tiny screen in its brain for a homunculus, which is a miniature version of the original creature, to view.

Since this is an unknown creature that you have never seen before, you have no data that will tend to contradict what I have said. Nevertheless, most people will immediately detect that this claim is false. Why? Because it doesn't answer the question. How does the homunculus see then? Well, inside the homunculus there is another homunculus and inside that one another homunculus that has a homunculus inside it.

So on and so on ad infinitum there are an infinite number of homonculi each inside the head of the previous one on and on forever.

You, however, seem to claim that infinite regress is perfectly valid. You, therefore, should believe in the homunculus explanation. If you do not, explain why.

I do believe that the homunculus explanation is possible, if the principle of suffiicient reason is false. And it is the principle of sufficient reason that requires ultimate answers, so I do not care if I do not have ultimate answers, if I do not assume it true.

Having no possible ultimate answers does not lead to an immediate logical contradiction I am aware of.

Does it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Zosimus]

So you believe in a homunculus but not in God. That's amusing.