Evolution, what evidence is there and what does creationism have?

[themadhair]

It going to take time, this specific complexity is a term coined by Paul Davis “The problem, as he sees it, with currently known scientific laws, like the laws of chemistry and physics, is that they are not up to explaining the key feature of life that needs to be explained. That feature is specified complexity. Life is both complex and specified”

The following is the boiled down version of why this fails. In information terms complexity is correlated with difficulty to compress that information, and specificity is correlated with ease of compression. See where this idea of specified complexity, almost by its very definition, is already going off the rails?

Specified complexity was first coined by Demski in ‘The Design inference’- a book specifically mentioned in the Wedge strategy. You want to tie your bets to this crowd?

And this is a chaotic system?

Depends on the context you are referring to. The force that is dominant here, gravity, is really the only one that counts. In that respect it is a non-chaotic gravitational system. Other than that the question makes no contextual sense.

 

[emiliano]

Life can't sustain in 99.9999 percent of the universe, so, god in his infinite wisdom decided to create this entire universe, with billions upon billions of planets, and stick us on this one little ball, going around another little ball, in a microscopic little spot in the universe. But it was somehow created for us. The theory of gravity explains the order we notice in the universe, but there is most definitely chaos outside our little ball, you have meteor showers, black holes, I mean it's utter chaos. But anyways, you only took one small portion of my statement, and didn't bother to rebuttal on the rest. I was explaining to you, natural processes require a different explanation than manufactured processes, such as watches buildings, music, etc...

Well we could change the definition of Chaos and problem solved, what you recon? Davis does it, so can we? My Brother asked me that once why so many stars and planets? I answered by saying it is a message and the Psalmist King David saw it this way:

Psa 8:3
When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained,
Psa 8:4
What is man that You are mindful of him, And the son of man that You visit him? ​

 

[Tristesse]

Well we could change the definition of Chaos and problem solved, what you recon? Davis does it, so can we? My Brother asked me that once why so many stars and planets? I answered by saying it is a message and the Psalmist King David saw it this way:

Psa 8:3
When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained,
Psa 8:4
What is man that You are mindful of him, And the son of man that You visit him? ​

Ok, it depends, what would you change it to? Because by the strictest definition, the universe is chaos. Those passages you offered, are very poetic, but not very insightful. It's about the same kind of knowledge you would expect from someone living in the 1st century. So, I'm not sure why you felt they were relevant, I mean the passage it's self is nice, but it offers no insight into anything we now know.

 

[themadhair]

Well we could change the definition of Chaos and problem solved, what you recon?

Please specify which concept of chaos you are using.

 

[emiliano]

Ok, it depends, what would you change it to? Because by the strictest definition, the universe is chaos. Those passages you offered, are very poetic, but not very insightful. It's about the same kind of knowledge you would expect from someone living in the 1st century. So, I'm not sure why you felt they were relevant, I mean the passage it's self is nice, but it offers no insight into anything we now know.

This is a hard task so let see so far the contributions that we have are: “The force that is dominant here, gravity, is really the only one that counts. In that respect it is a non-chaotic gravitational system”(TMH) so we have here that the planets and the stars are at such distance from each other that implosion of the big bang does not occur, could this be the product of chance? So what about a non chaotic, chaotic universe? Not that won’t work, what a pity. Your contribution is: Nobody said the "system" was chaotic. What happens in the universe is chaotic, smaller planets rotate around bigger planets, it's a gravitational pull. Thats just how we know the universe to work. ??????????????????? That surely shows that the universe is not chaotic and from that I infer that it is ordain and sustained supernaturally and that this generations of scientist are working toward some understanding of it, only God knows how long before they can understand it and they are not that far advanced in their understating that the King. They don’t know how the universe works yet. What I am certain of it that is not the product of chance.

 

[emiliano]

Please specify which concept of chaos you are using.

A non-chaotic universe ordained and sustained supernaturally by God the Almighty.

 

[emiliano]

I am thinking of buying a book that could help and I can decide yet Dembski or Pope Benedict In a new book, Creation and Evolution, published Wednesday in German, the pope praised progress gained by science, but cautioned that evolution raises philosophical questions science alone cannot answer.
"The question is not to either make a decision for a creationism that fundamentally excludes science, or for an evolutionary theory that covers over its own gaps and does not want to see the questions that reach beyond the methodological possibilities of natural science," the pope said.

 

[Tristesse]

This is a hard task so let see so far the contributions that we have are: “The force that is dominant here, gravity, is really the only one that counts. In that respect it is a non-chaotic gravitational system”(TMH) so we have here that the planets and the stars are at such distance from each other that implosion of the big bang does not occur, could this be the product of chance? So what about a non chaotic, chaotic universe? Not that won’t work, what a pity. Your contribution is: Nobody said the "system" was chaotic. What happens in the universe is chaotic, smaller planets rotate around bigger planets, it's a gravitational pull. Thats just how we know the universe to work. ??????????????????? That surely shows that the universe is not chaotic and from that I infer that it is ordain and sustained supernaturally and that this generations of scientist are working toward some understanding of it, only God knows how long before they can understand it and they are not that far advanced in their understating that the King. They don’t know how the universe works yet. What I am certain of it that is not the product of chance.

Your just not getting it, I'm not talking about the planets being in chaos. Not once did I mention the planets, The universe as a whole. Whats chaotic is what happens in the universe, not the rotation of the planets. Meteor showers, black holes. It's not a friendly place.
Now your next point was, since it's not chaotic therefore it's supernatural. You have to prove supernatural cause, you can't just say, I don't know how this has happened, therefore it's supernatural. Which we went over, it's a gravitational pull, larger objects pull on smaller ones, I'm assuming you've been to high school well, maybe not, I don't know how old you are. To give up and say "god did it" is the biggest non answer, because it doesn't tell us anything, I mean what created god? Is he something that could be observed? your filling a gap of knowledge with a non answer. I'm sure it makes you feel comfortable, but I'd rather know the truth, and if we can't ever know the truth, than I'm happy saying I don't know, because it doesn't stop further investigation.

 

[Tristesse]

I am thinking of buying a book that could help and I can decide yet Dembski or Pope Benedict In a new book, Creation and Evolution, published Wednesday in German, the pope praised progress gained by science, but cautioned that evolution raises philosophical questions science alone cannot answer.
"The question is not to either make a decision for a creationism that fundamentally excludes science, or for an evolutionary theory that covers over its own gaps and does not want to see the questions that reach beyond the methodological possibilities of natural science," the pope said.

You know I think it's quite funny, the pope before this new one. Accepted the theory of evolution, he noticed the overwhelming evidence to support it. Now we have a new pope and he doesn't accept evolution, as if this new pope had a better land line directly to god. It's absurd. If your going to read a book about evolution you might want to read one that tells the fact, not one thats biased towards what you want to hear. Because the fact of the matter, is a lot of those creationist book, lie to get there point across. They give misinformation, most of them have never even studied biology, or evolution. So, their only speaking from their pure bias standpoint. I think it's about 99.9% of biologist understand and accept the fact of evolution, the only ones who don't are people(not scientists) and creationists.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Just explain in scientific terms WHAT your problem is with ToE.

IF you only objection is theological than - who cares? Science doesn't deal with theology.

You got a better scientific explanation for the diversity of life - post it.

Until you DO ToE stands unrefuted.

 

[Tristesse]

Just explain in scientific terms WHAT your problem is with ToE.

IF you only objection is theological than - who cares? Science doesn't deal with theology.

You got a better scientific explanation for the diversity of life - post it.

Until you DO ToE stands unrefuted.

Thats the problem, his only objection to it is one of theology. It's obvious that he hasn't really thought through why he dismisses the theory, he's just being spoon fed straight from the pulpit what he should believe.

 

[emiliano]

You know I think it's quite funny, the pope before this new one. Accepted the theory of evolution, he noticed the overwhelming evidence to support it. Now we have a new pope and he doesn't accept evolution, as if this new pope had a better land line directly to god. It's absurd. If your going to read a book about evolution you might want to read one that tells the fact, not one thats biased towards what you want to hear. Because the fact of the matter, is a lot of those creationist book, lie to get there point across. They give misinformation, most of them have never even studied biology, or evolution. So, their only speaking from their pure bias standpoint. I think it's about 99.9% of biologist understand and accept the fact of evolution, the only ones who don't are people(not scientists) and creationists.

I think that is you that are not getting it, what the Pope is saying it’s that evolution does not and it cannot disprove the existence of what it self evident by simple natural observations of the things created, that these paths to knowledge are not the enemy or a threat to each other. It goes without saying that I agree with the Pope understanding of this matter. Do you know the scientific resources that are available to this man? BTW atheist are as bias as Christians are, they are Darwin’s fundamentalist I read that Pope Benedict is very Augustinian in his thoughts, thus he does not argue about thing that can be prove by science, hard atheism is what we can’t agree with. We can not agree with evolutionism that claims to have proved that there is no God/Creator through evolution.
This may make it clearer to you: LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.
The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.
“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
He said evolution did not answer all the questions: “Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, ‘Where does everything come from?’”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/

 

[Autodidact]

I am thinking of buying a book that could help and I can decide yet Dembski or Pope Benedict In a new book, Creation and Evolution, published Wednesday in German, the pope praised progress gained by science, but cautioned that evolution raises philosophical questions science alone cannot answer.
"The question is not to either make a decision for a creationism that fundamentally excludes science, or for an evolutionary theory that covers over its own gaps and does not want to see the questions that reach beyond the methodological possibilities of natural science," the pope said.

Try Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller. He is a Catholic and a good writer, as well as a Biologist. I think you will like it and find it helpful.

 

[Autodidact]

Just explain in scientific terms WHAT your problem is with ToE.

IF you only objection is theological than - who cares? Science doesn't deal with theology.

You got a better scientific explanation for the diversity of life - post it.

Until you DO ToE stands unrefuted.

I'm confused. I thought emiliano accepts ToE.

 

[emiliano]

Your just not getting it, I'm not talking about the planets being in chaos. Not once did I mention the planets, The universe as a whole. Whats chaotic is what happens in the universe, not the rotation of the planets. Meteor showers, black holes. It's not a friendly place.
Now your next point was, since it's not chaotic therefore it's supernatural. You have to prove supernatural cause, you can't just say, I don't know how this has happened, therefore it's supernatural. Which we went over, it's a gravitational pull, larger objects pull on smaller ones, I'm assuming you've been to high school well, maybe not, I don't know how old you are. To give up and say "god did it" is the biggest non answer, because it doesn't tell us anything, I mean what created god? Is he something that could be observed? your filling a gap of knowledge with a non answer. I'm sure it makes you feel comfortable, but I'd rather know the truth, and if we can't ever know the truth, than I'm happy saying I don't know, because it doesn't stop further investigation.

Well, let just say that I am a lot older than you sonny, and leave at that. What do you make of the meteorite that exterminated the Dinosaurs? It seems that this meteorite had an obit that was such that at a certain point in time the whole of life was going to change, the result was as harmonious one, life as we presently know it, awesome isn’t it? Mindless, random and fortuity? I don’t think so.

 

[Tristesse]

I think that is you that are not getting it, what the Pope is saying it’s that evolution does not and it cannot disprove the existence of what it self evident by simple natural observations of the things created, that these paths to knowledge are not the enemy or a threat to each other. It goes without saying that I agree with the Pope understanding of this matter. Do you know the scientific resources that are available to this man? BTW atheist are as bias as Christians are, they are Darwin’s fundamentalist I read that Pope Benedict is very Augustinian in his thoughts, thus he does not argue about thing that can be prove by science, hard atheism is what we can’t agree with. We can not agree with evolutionism that claims to have proved that there is no God/Creator through evolution.
This may make it clearer to you: LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.
The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.
“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
He said evolution did not answer all the questions: “Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, ‘Where does everything come from?’”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/

Thats where you are mistaken, my atheism has nothing to do with the acceptance of the theory of evolution. My atheism is a purely different issue than the evolution one. I never claimed that evolution disproves a god. I'm sorry but your putting words in my mouth.

 

[emiliano]

I'm confused. I thought emiliano accepts ToE.

But Auto can you see that he is more confused than anybody in the thread? BTW the Pope also accept it. TOE and the allegorical nature of the Genesis account goes back to Saint Augustine's times.

 

[darkendless]

But Auto can you see that he is more confused than anybody in the thread? BTW the Pope also accept it. TOE and the allegorical nature of the Genesis account goes back to Saint Augustine's times.

Doesn't Genesis put an approximate age on the earth at 6000 years? If so, theres a bit of a problem there.

 

[Tristesse]

Well, let just say that I am a lot older than you sonny, and leave at that. What do you make of the meteorite that exterminated the Dinosaurs? It seems that this meteorite had an obit that was such that at a certain point in time the whole of life was going to change, the result was as harmonious one, life as we presently know it, awesome isn’t it? Mindless, random and fortuity? I don’t think so.

Ok, I'm not that old, but your grammar isn't that good, so, I wasn't sure of your age. Again, you can't just claim supernatural, you have to provide evidence for supernatural. Your only looking at life through the hand you were dealt. You have no idea how great life could have been, but your applying some importance to the one you have. It's like being dealt a hand in poker, we attribute the royal flush to be the best hand you can be dealt. When in reality every hand in poker is just as improbable as anyother hand you could be dealt. Your applying a certain importance to this one. Supernatural causes need to be backed by evidence, not the lack of evidence.

 

[emiliano]

Try Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller. He is a Catholic and a good writer, as well as a Biologist. I think you will like it and find it helpful.

Thank Auto, there are lots of things to consider though, time, finances and others I bought a good one tiled "The language of God" I have the City of God, Confessions and I am having a go at studying Aquinas Summa. The RCC authorities no longer see scientific discoveries as a danger to faith and don't oppose it when it does not over steps the boundaries of Ethic and Morality, the current Pope is a Philosopher and Theologian, and a good one IMO.