Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

baddog1 wrote:

Have already answered each of your questions on this very post.

You're the one who needs to focus. I've pointed out that your question is begged by the assumption that evolution was "invented," and that "someone" was responsible.

Do try to keep up.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

One fact as we currently know it is that space/time as we experience it, does not extend beyond our Universe.

We don't know this, unless you use a selective definition.

rosborne979 wrote:

We don't know what's out there, maybe NO time, or maybe DIFFERENT time,

See, you admit it yourself. You sure can turn on a dime.

rosborne979 wrote:

but we know it's not OUR time.

Again, we don't know this. See above.

For instance, I don't see anything in this definition that limits time to our universe, do you?

from http://merriamwebster.com/dictionary/time

Quote:

Main Entry: 1 time
Pronunciation: 'tIm
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English tIma; akin to Old Norse tImi time, Old English tId -- more at TIDE
1 a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : DURATION b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future c : LEISURE <time for reading>
2 : the point or period when something occurs : OCCASION
3 a : an appointed, fixed, or customary moment or hour for something to happen, begin, or end <arrived ahead of time> b : an opportune or suitable moment <decided it was time to retire> -- often used in the phrase about time <about time for a change>
4 a : a historical period : AGE b : a division of geologic chronology c : conditions at present or at some specified period -- usually used in plural <times are hard> <move with the times> d : the present time <issues of the time>
5 a : LIFETIME b : a period of apprenticeship c : a term of military service d : a prison sentence
6 : SEASON <very hot for this time of year>
7 a : rate of speed : TEMPO b : the grouping of the beats of music : RHYTHM
8 a : a moment, hour, day, or year as indicated by a clock or calendar <what time is it> b : any of various systems (as sidereal or solar) of reckoning time
9 a : one of a series of recurring instances or repeated actions <you've been told many times> b plural (1) : added or accumulated quantities or instances <five times greater> (2) : equal fractional parts of which an indicated number equal a comparatively greater quantity <seven times smaller> <three times closer> c : TURN <three times at bat>
10 : finite as contrasted with infinite duration
11 : a person's experience during a specified period or on a particular occasion <a good time> <a hard time>
12 a : the hours or days required to be occupied by one's work <make up time> <on company time> b : an hourly pay rate <straight time> c : wages paid at discharge or resignation <pick up your time and get out>
13 a : the playing time of a game b : TIME-OUT 1
14 : a period during which something is used or available for use <computer time>
- at the same time : NEVERTHELESS, YET <slick and at the same time strangely unprofessional -- Gerald Weaks>
- at times : at intervals : OCCASIONALLY
- for the time being : for the present
- from time to time : once in a while : OCCASIONALLY
- in no time : very quickly or soon
- in time
1 : sufficiently early
2 : EVENTUALLY
3 : in correct tempo <learn to play in time>
- on time
1 a : at the appointed time b : on schedule
2 : on the installment plan
- time and again : FREQUENTLY, REPEATEDLY

rosborne979 wrote:

In short, based on reality as we currently understand it, you cannot reasonably assume that the Universe was created or invented.

'Based on what we currently understand, we can't understand how it could be any other way'

Way to finish with a circle. Good job.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
One fact as we currently know it is that space/time as we experience it, does not extend beyond our Universe.

We don't know this, unless you use a selective definition.

Cosmology and physics as we currently understand them limit space and time to our Universe. It's not a matter of a definition of TIME, as you so happily pointed out in Websters. It is the definition of UNIVERSE based on current cosmology, mathematics and physics which matters.

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
We don't know what's out there, maybe NO time, or maybe DIFFERENT time,

See, you admit it yourself. You sure can turn on a dime.

You're not thinking this through carefully enough.

It's perfectly logical to say that we know our space/time is isolated to our Universe, and to still say that we don't know what is outside our Universe.

If I have something in my hand and you have something hidden in your hand, then I don't know what's in your hand, but I know for certain that it's not what is in MY hand. And even if we're both holding the same TYPE of object, they are not the SAME object.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
One fact as we currently know it is that space/time as we experience it, does not extend beyond our Universe.

We don't know this, unless you use a selective definition.

Cosmology and physics as we currently understand them limit space and time to our Universe. It's not a matter of a definition of TIME, as you so happily pointed out in Websters. It is the definition of UNIVERSE based on current cosmology, mathematics and physics which matters.

real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
We don't know what's out there, maybe NO time, or maybe DIFFERENT time,

See, you admit it yourself. You sure can turn on a dime.

You're not thinking this through carefully enough.

It's perfectly logical to say that we know our space/time is isolated to our Universe, and to still say that we don't know what is outside our Universe.

If I have something in my hand and you have something hidden in your hand, then I don't know what's in your hand, but I know for certain that it's not what is in MY hand. And even if we're both holding the same TYPE of object, they are not the SAME object.

Yer splittin hairs Ros.

If Time exists outside of our Universe (and I'm not arguing it does or does not), then it's a distinction without a difference to say that 'our time' does not exist outside of the Universe.

The only reason I bring it up is not to argue for Time existing outside the Universe, but to point out how faulty it is to say 'we know' what we do not know.

You assume Time does not exist outside of our Universe, just as you assume that all things have natural causes.

Neither is provable; they're your assumptions and should be always clearly labeled as unprovable assumptions, not as things 'we know'.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

If Time exists outside of our Universe (and I'm not arguing it does or does not), then it's a distinction without a difference to say that 'our time' does not exist outside of the Universe.

I disagree.

We have SOME knowledge of physics within our Universe. We have NO knowledge of anything outside our Universe. I wouldn't call that a distinction without a difference.

real life wrote:

The only reason I bring it up is not to argue for Time existing outside the Universe, but to point out how faulty it is to say 'we know' what we do not know.

The only thing I said we know, is that our space/time is contained within our Universe (part of the cosmological definition as we currently understand physics). And we do know that.

real life wrote:

You assume Time does not exist outside of our Universe.

No I don't. As I said before, we don't know what is outside our Universe, but we do know (current understanding of physics and cosmology), that OUR space/time does not exist outside of OUR Universe.

Something similar to our space/time may exist outside, or may not, but whatever it is, it's not what's in here. They are separate.

real life wrote:

just as you assume that all things have natural causes

This is a very different assumption (methodological naturalism), and I have clearly stated that it is a philosophical assumption, many many times.

real life wrote:

Neither is provable; they're your assumptions and should be always clearly labeled as unprovable assumptions, not as things 'we know'.

I have never said anything else. You need to read what I'm saying more carefully and quit trying to lump things together which don't go together, that just muddies the water, and I'm sure you wouldn't want to do that.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Have already answered each of your questions on this very post.

Baddog, I'm a bit confused too... Let's try to settle the confusion.

When you use the word "invent", do you refer to the idea as to why things are the way they are? Such as: Why is an atom an atom? etc...

0 Replies

c_logic wrote:

Real life, I'm curious:

Even though you think that Evolution has several holes, do you think it's at least the best we've got at this point?

The best what?

0 Replies

I've always thought that the whole evolution/creation debate was the most futile of all debates.

0 Replies

In what way?

0 Replies

Atavist wrote

Quote:

I've always thought that the whole evolution/creation debate was the most futile of all debates.

You are correct, but by taking a closer look at that futility can move us along to better insights into how "knowledge" functions. Unfortunately what tends to happen is that fundamentalists become entrenched with an infantile defense, and scientists overplay their superior hand by confusing "knowledge" with "truth".

Following Godel, no knowledge system can claim "Ultimate truth" because it depends on at least one axiom whose validity cannot be established from within the system. In practical terms this means that "knowledge" is an ever expanding set of embedded or nested systems each of which interacts with the corresponding evolving social system which it serves. (See Piaget or Kuhn). The primary assumption made by "absolutists" of which "theists" are but one type, is that this hierarchy of systems is ultimately "closed".

0 Replies

real life wrote:

c_logic wrote:
Real life, I'm curious:

Even though you think that Evolution has several holes, do you think it's at least the best we've got at this point?

The best what?

The best explanation we've got at this point for how humans developed on earth.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Following Godel, no knowledge system can claim "Ultimate truth" because it depends on at least one axiom whose validity cannot be established from within the system.

That is correct when it comes to debating the "ultimate truth", such as the context of the universe.
However, when it comes to debating something "local" like Evolution, there is no reason to make it complicated (as the original post of this thread suggests).
Creationism proponents like to step out of this "local" scope and make it look like it's critical to step out into the "unknown" in order to be able to explain how humans came to be. Scientists try to stay "local" and rely on evidence on hand, which there's plenty of.

Again - as I mentioned before - evolution itself is not really a big mystery. It's made to look difficult/impossible to have happened by itself by religious folks whose religious ideas would collapse without a divine being having been directly involved in the creation of living beings. (such as God having created the Earth in only a few days, then created Adam and Eve,..).

Although the context of the universe itself is a big mystery, Evolution itself is not.

Therefore it's not a futile debate - it's a bogus debate that shouldn't even exist. Evolution has rock solid evidence that cannot be ignored, where Creationism has no evidence whatsoever. It's no contest.

0 Replies

The chances of an evolutionist "converting" a creationist or vice-versa is slim to none. The nature of the debate does more to divide people than accomplish anything constructive. Of course, I don't discourage the actual scientific research, but I rarely see anything constructive come from these heated debates. The idea of God is beyond the realm of natural science and no matter how much "evidence" there may or may not be, cannot be disproven in any conventional sense. There will always be religious belief to some extent and it is foolish to think otherwise.

For my part, I am equally disdainful of religious fundamentalists AND militant evolutionists/atheists. I think an individuals religious beliefs or lack thereof is none of anyone's business and I resent both sides telling me what I should believe.

0 Replies

c-logic wrote

Quote:

when it comes to debating something "local" like Evolution, there is no reason to make it complicated

I do not have sufficient detailed knowledge to personally illustrate why evolution may be far from a "local" or "simple" phenomenon. I would instead refer you to the work of Maturana (et al) which views "cognition" as synonymous with "the life process". This raises a host of epistemological issues such as whether "natural selection" is a "cause" or an "effect" of the evolutionary process. (see for example http://www.pnc.com.au/~lfell/matsbio.html)

0 Replies

c_logic wrote:

real life wrote:
c_logic wrote:
Real life, I'm curious:

Even though you think that Evolution has several holes, do you think it's at least the best we've got at this point?

The best what?

The best explanation we've got at this point for how humans developed on earth.

If you frame the question in that fashion 'how humans developed on earth', you automatically exclude all other possibilities from consideration. Do you see that?

What makes you think that humans must have 'developed' or 'evolved'?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

If you frame the question in that fashion 'how humans developed on earth', you automatically exclude all other possibilities from consideration. Do you see that?

What makes you think that humans must have 'developed' or 'evolved'?

Allright, fair enough, let me rephrase the question:

The best explanation we've got at this point for how humans came to be earth's inhabitants. What would your answer be, and what is your evidence?

0 Replies

c_logic wrote:

real life wrote:
If you frame the question in that fashion 'how humans developed on earth', you automatically exclude all other possibilities from consideration. Do you see that?

What makes you think that humans must have 'developed' or 'evolved'?

Allright, fair enough, let me rephrase the question:

The best explanation we've got at this point for how humans came to be earth's inhabitants. What would your answer be, and what is your evidence?

The evidence that an evolutionist or a creationist refers to is exactly the same.

Fossils are fossils.

Rocks are rocks.

However, an evolutionist will interpret the evidence in one way. A creationist will interpret the evidence in another way.

It is not as though 'one side has evidence, the other does not'.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

However, an evolutionist will interpret the evidence in one way. A creationist will interpret the evidence in another way.

Please give an example of an item which you consider to be evidence for creationism, and explain how it should be viewed such that it supports creationism.

0 Replies

I think you have said previously that there is no evidence that creationism cannot explain, isn't that so?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

I think you have said previously that there is no evidence that creationism cannot explain, isn't that so?

I was hoping to see you defend your position, and not ask me to do it for you.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know