Do Mutations Prove Evolution? (cold, pet)

[Strel]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

I've got more knowledge than you think I do.

Not on the topic that counts you don't. You make this obvious when you post things like "a dog turning into a cat."

LOL

Having said that, I can ask you the same thing regarding theology. How can you possibly hope to produce valid criticisms of creationism when it's obvious that you are working with a serious lack of knowledge of theology?

My criticisms of Creationism are based in science, and only apply to those unfortunate situations when Creationists try to pass off religion AS science, which it plainly isn't. Theology doesn't apply. This is the science board.

I've given you a pretty good argument--go back to post 85. It's a serious question using the law of non-contradiction. This is a logical argument. Honestly...you are acting as a typical atheist does--you pretend you're somehow smarter than your opponent, insult them, and claim victory rather than actually answering the question. I've seen this time and time again from you, in particular, as well as a couple other on this thread. You are one of the most common to do this tactic.

Just saying it doesn't make it so. Again--I'm BEGGING you to give me a decent answer to post 85. PLEASE!!!!!!! This should be something simple for such a brainiac like you.

It's not a logical argument. It's an imitation of logic, as others have already pointed out.

I'm also not an atheist. Nice try.

Assuming facts not in evidence is....well it's just not LOGICAL, is it?

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Strel

Not on the topic that counts you don't. You make this obvious when you post things like "a dog turning into a cat."

LOL



My criticisms of Creationism are based in science, and only apply to those unfortunate situations when Creationists try to pass off religion AS science, which it plainly isn't. Theology doesn't apply. This is the science board.





It's not a logical argument. It's an imitation of logic, as others have already pointed out.

I'm also not an atheist. Nice try.

Assuming facts not in evidence is....well it's just not LOGICAL, is it?

I'll just take that as "no...I have no real argument" and ignore you until you can give a reasonable answer.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Aside from the problems others have stated Calvinist thinks he gets out of a conundrum by this sufficient and necessary cause business - but he only causes probelms for his God.

If the existence of God had the sufficient element to create the universe as well as the necessary element the universe should be eternally existence with this Being - if it is the Christian God. The reason is that the necessary element would have been delayed if the universe is not eternal and this is a problem for the theology of Christianity.

The Creator chose to create it when he did. He is the necessary cause. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

If nothing existed except this God then he would have been unsatisfied with his own existence at some POINT in his existence.

How can you know that?

This is the only reason any personal being ACTS in the first place - this is a Praxelogical fact. Otherwise, if such unsatisfaction was always present then the creation would have always been as well - and that is not what theology teaches about this perfect Being.

1. God was eternally unsatisfied with his own existence or

2. God became unsatisfied with his own existence

Both of which do not square with the God of Christian theology and His act to create all matter/energy.

I understand your point. Good response. Thank you.

I dismiss that point, however. I believe an omnipotent and perfect creator does not need anything outside of himself.

This does not even touch on the fact regarding the means this metaphysical Being used to create the matter/energy if it is not part and parcel of Him. How and upon what does a non-material/energy mind act to begin with? I have stated similar things already in post #102.

He created the universe out of himself--he spoke it into existence.

Furthermore, the fact the universe itself might be eternal is just ignored or dealt with insufficiently.

Except the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the nature of trying to pass an infinite amount of time.

There is nothing to say that all matter/energy does not have the necessary and sufficient causes to casue the effects we witness in the present. Since science only gets us back to the Planc length there is nothing a theist can do to prove otherwise.

Then we have the necessary and sufficient cause triggering the creation event an infinite amount of time ago.

Here is something to chew on:

Something either exists eteranlly or nothing would exist at all. True

Yes.

Does matter/energy exist? Yes

Yes.

Is there any proof that matter/energy never existed? No, we have only gone back to a certain point - a point that does NOT say that nothing existed. And this is only so if we accept the Standard Model, which is not a foregone conclusion.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us that the universe is not infinitely old. It was caused/created at some point.

Is there proof that something other than matter/energy exists. No. Unless you are taking a faith based approach and avoiding any epistemological methodolgies. This is why Christains call it Special Revelation - because it only comes in an Ancient Book Form that you must feel to be true or not. Note that internal coherence of this book does necessitate correspondence to reality. Even if we postulate theories of mind we no of no minds that are disembodied.

Again....I would disagree with you. I think you're taking liberties and stating your opinion here, rather than logical conclusions.

The Most Reasonable and Logical Conclusion:

Until there is proof that matter and energy did not exist at one time and that something other than matter/energy exists eteranlly then matter/energy are eternally existent.

We have that proof.

Furthermore, another point that is overlooked is that this eternally existing matter/energy might be intelligent is some way or it might be as QM says nondeterministic - in which case the necessary and suffcient causes would always be available but the necessary cause would only come about by a certain potential that arose in the Quantum world.

In an infinite amount of time it would have come about by a certain potential an infinite amount of time ago.

Anyway, I think this sufficiently brings doubt to this Creator and the fact that even if He exists in the Christain form it is not epistemologically sound - so any boasting of logical or other statements to that effect are just games and wishful thinking or FAITH wrapped in apologetic garb.

Thank you for your thoughtful response to my post. You are the first one that I've seen on this thread that appears to have been capable (or willing) of responding in such a manner. For that, I thank you.

I will continue to disagree with you, though--for the reasons I've pointed out above. I think you're just missing a few points.

[Strel]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

I'll just take that as "no...I have no real argument" and ignore you until you can give a reasonable answer.

Please do.

I can't take much more of your laughably bad understanding of evolutionary science, or your pretensions to understand the rules of logic.

[orogenicman]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

I start with the presupposition

The presupposition you start with is "god did it". Sorry, but that doesn't explain anything.

You asked earlier what it would take to refute evolution. Here is it. If you can find a fossil rabbit in Cambrian rocks, THAT would refute evolution. Got ANYTHING like that?

Originally Posted by Calvinist

I understand your point. Good response. Thank you.

I dismiss that point, however. I believe an omnipotent and perfect creator does not need anything outside of himself.

Dismissal is not good grounds for truth. My point was not about need but state of mind and existence.

He created the universe out of himself--he spoke it into existence.

This does not explain anything. This is your belief. Once again an epistemological problem and logical problem. What do you mean 'out of himself' - you belive that all matter/energy were created at one point in God's existence yet that all matter/energy are completely seperate and ontologically different than God????

You want to use cause and effect - then show me the means and material by which God acted. You talk about the rock and fulcrum - what medium did God use to create something wholly seperate from himself? How did this non-matter/energy mind act - furthermore why -if he is perfect and content with his existence? Purposeful Action (Praxeology) is always because of an unsatificatory state of present existence - otherwise there would be no action nor need for one. All action incorperates not only cause and effect but means and material - where is it? Just stateing - he is God he can do anything, he is all powerful, or he spoke it (how does that work) does nothing to explain anything it is all ad-hoc nonesense that has no epistemological grounds.

Except the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the nature of trying to pass an infinite amount of time.

Then we have the necessary and sufficient cause triggering the creation event an infinite amount of time ago.

I think you're missing the point - go back and think through the points I made. Hint, your God has the same problem. If God eternally desired to create the universe then the universe would be eternal and God would have been in an unsatifactory state from eternity. If not then God became unsatisfied with his own state (the no universe state) at some point - both are problems for your God.

Also, Time itself was created out of the vacuum. The 2nd law would not apply to an eternal vacuum. It is just potential energy that is not time constrained to produce particles in motion - especially if we follow QM - there are SED theories as well. Furthermore, we do not know what kind of eternal cycle the universe may be on - it is possible we have a snapshot of an eternal cycle of matter/energy in which case both the sufficient and necessary elements are always at work - this is no different than your eternal God except it it not a metaphysical postulation based on a Book. If God had the necessary elemnet to act yet did not then why can't I say the same for matter/energy - a delayed potential universe that came into existence under proper quantum flucuations? Your God delayed his action - yet had the necessary (potential cause) and suffcient causes. If not then God and the universe would be simultaneously eternal since God would have acted to create from eternity. Either way, your argument is 1) used against you by applying it to matter/energy - sufficient and necessary causes are bound-up in the nature (ontology) of matter/energy just as you ground them in God's nature, and/or, 2) Shows the logical problems with your Christian theology - mainly God as a pefect eternal Being.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us that the universe is not infinitely old. It was caused/created at some point.

No, only the universe as we know it exists at the present time and state - not before the Standard Big Bang point of expansion. Do you forget that matter/energy can neither be created not destroyed - or are you going to somehow dismiss this principle and not apply it to your world view.

Again....I would disagree with you. I think you're taking liberties and stating your opinion here, rather than logical conclusions.

That is your right to do so but that is not an explanation nor is it proof as you have stated so many times. My main point really has to do with your epistemological surity when nothing can be further from the truth. It is just your beliefs based on, as you said, presuppositions.

We have that proof.

I think I will just disagree and say you are taking liberties...

Thank you for your thoughtful response to my post. You are the first one that I've seen on this thread that appears to have been capable (or willing) of responding in such a manner. For that, I thank you.

You're Welcome!

I will continue to disagree with you, though--for the reasons I've pointed out above. I think you're just missing a few points.

Likewise.

I still think the four points and conclusion stand and were not dealt with sufficiently:

Something either exists eteranlly or nothing would exist at all. True

Does matter/energy exist? Yes

Is there any proof that matter/energy never existed? No.

Is there proof that something other than matter/energy exists. No.

The Most Reasonable and Logical Conclusion:

Until there is proof that matter and energy did not exist at one time and that something other than matter/energy exists eteranlly then matter/energy are eternally existent.

[orogenicman]

Something either exists eteranlly or nothing would exist at all. True

I believe this is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine.

Originally Posted by orogenicman

I believe this is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine.

Please Explain.

Since there is something rather than nothing then something has to be eternal - it can be no other way. If at one time nothing existed then something would never come into existance - you can not get something from nothing - therefore something must have always existed.

I think this is the greatest philosophical question - why is there something rather than nothing? The answer is, in part at least, that something is eternal - either matter/energy or something else.

[orogenicman]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Please Explain.

Since there is something rather than nothing then something has to be eternal - it can be no other way. If at one time nothing existed then something would never come into existance - you can not get something from nothing - therefore something must have always existed.

I think this is the greatest philosophical question - why is there something rather than nothing? The answer is, in part at least, that something is eternal - either matter/energy or something else.

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system. Since the system is isolated, it has a finite amount of energy to do work. Once that energy is exhausted (it is never destroyed, only converted to something else, i.e., matter, for instance via E=mc2), the system is said to be in equilibrium. There can be no perpetual motion machines because the universe has a finite amount of matter and energy. It is a closed system. The universe is finite but unbounded. So to suggest that there is something rather than nothing therefore something has to be eternal is an example of Reductio ad absurdum.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Strel

Please do.

I can't take much more of your laughably bad understanding of evolutionary science, or your pretensions to understand the rules of logic.

if you say so.