Evolution is Unscientific

RJM Corbet said:
However bacterial endobiotic speciation (even if that is what's really happening, in absence of sexual reproduction)* could continue for infinity without giving rise to eukaryotic life?

It's similar to applying electton/quanum reasoning to what happens to an actual giraffe?

* Speciation being the inability of species to interbreed
Click to expand...
I don't know enough to form an opinion, but since "interbreed" implies sex, then any(thing / creature / asexual being) that is able to replicate without sex I would think by definition would be another species. But this may be an exception, something probably best asked of an expert in the field.
 
juantoo3 said:
Morton's Demon is not my essay, it belongs to Glenn Morton. I just happen to agree with it. I too, travelled down that road at one time. I wish I could explain how I turned around, but it was a gradual process that I didn't fully realize at the time. Looking back, with this essay and other points along the way, I can see how I was able to overcome. And you would be correct if you assigned that to G-d, as I have always asked for His wisdom and guidance.
Click to expand...

Never said it was your essay, only yours in the sense that you made good use of the model. No drive-by guiltings please, seen too many of them in my time ;). We all have our paths to travel, one man's overcoming is another man's selling out. My path is not yours and vice-versa, and I would not have it any other way. It takes all stripes.


juantoo3 said:
All of us have chinks in our armor, nothing surprising about that. The one who may take advantage also has *his* own chinks, and a wise person has a pretty good idea where to look...and not to abuse the privilege.
Click to expand...

I answered a riddle with a riddle, risking that both would fail of the prick. Perhaps things turned out better than I originally thought.

juantoo3 said:
OK, but this goes waaaay off out of the realm of science and deeply into religion / spiritualism / faith. Not that I disagree, but we're crossing streams here (Ghostbusters reference).
Click to expand...

Ha... This reminds me of something my dad said once. He passed a couple years back though, and there are no do-overs in this current physical realm. People have been crossing streams here as long as I have been a member, but I will try to keep it on the straight and narrow from now on.

juantoo3 said:
Scientific models serve a purpose. They help prove, or disprove, a postulated hypothesis. Deliberate disinformation is a tool (weapon?) of rhetoric, not science, and not rational reasoning. That's not to say science may not have garbled or inaccurate data, depending on the particular study, but over time usually the garbled data can be accounted for and worked around. And then sometimes what is seen initially as garbled data turns out to be accurate...that's how the Big Bang was discovered.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is what I mean. I would prefer honesty to carnal weapons such as deceit. I'm really glad God does not fit into your model(s). IMO one can never get to the heart of God through a scientific experiment or hypothesis. And that is a good thing, I believe. The path is always open however, it's just that it belongs to all, not just the intellectually gifted.
 
juantoo3 said:
Funny thing about demons, they don't like strong light... ;)

And since you've already shown a light on him...
Click to expand...

This may be more true than you think, Juan. I haven't seen much strong light yet, but it could happen. I for one, am not afraid of it.
 
juantoo3 said:
Funny thing about demons, they don't like strong light... ;)

And since you've already shown a light on him...
Click to expand...
They stomp.their feet to get the dust off..lol


Note, I say this in quasi jest, my knee-jerk reaction when intense thought and dialogue takes me into waters that are over my head..the struggle is good!
 
juantoo3 said:
The Migrant Mind: When did Adam live? Part 4 Fossil Record & The Curse of the Big Brain

This is part of a series of essays by Morton. Particularly the part about the Curse of the Big Brain, well worth considering. I don't particularly agree with his conclusion, and I have my reasons I wish I could discuss with him. Be that as it may, his essays are well worth a read.
Click to expand...
He is arguing for an Adam that did exist, but as a population, not an individual and of far too early origin to match a literal Genesis ... I think?
 
Last edited:
This being the secular thread, I am allowing myself a bit of freedom.

As per @RJM above, it was suggested by a lecturer on my (very traditional Catholic) theology degree that 'Adam and Eve' might refer to a collective rather than an individual.

I feel a lot like @juantoo3 with regard to The Migrant Mind blog he links to. I, too, do not necessarily agree with the conclusion, and I certainly don't agree with the last paragraph:

Nothing said or proclaimed there (Genesis 2-3) is true. This should not be the view of people who think that the Scripture contains the way of Salvation.
Too black and white – there's no room for discernment in a book which contains a number of distinctly different narrative forms.

How can such a false book (in their view) really be trusted to tell us the metaphysical truths that we are unable to verify.
Well as the empirical sciences cannot verify or validate metaphysical truth as such is, by its definition, outside its remit.

On the other hand, other sciences, and not limited to theology, do allow that Genesis does convey truths 'of the human condition', offers a profound and meaningful discourse on what it is to be human, and indeed lays the foundation of a metaphysical paradigm.

(As an aside, with regard to 'the empirical science method' being the benchmark of truth, I regard this as a narrow and rather myopic view of science and, in my opinion, one we still need to shake off, or evolve out of, or at the very least review, as mosts scientists seem to accept that such is no longer the case in fields where empirical data eludes us.)

This is why a historical reading of Genesis is necessary--it is necessary for the trustworthiness of scripture.
These statements are in themselves 'unscientific', indeed as 'unscientific' as the common view of evolution.

I mean no criticism of the departed author, but were I in the position to talk to him I would ask if he has ever discussed this with those who believe in evolution and the Bible? I feel sure he must have, did he think us lightweight?
 
RJM Corbet said:
He is arguing for an Adam that did exist, but as a population, not an individual and of far too early origin to match a literal Genesis ... I think?
Click to expand...

..makes sense to me..
I firmly believe that Adam and Eve existed .. but as you say, not necessarily as the only man and woman.
Almighty G-d knows about the time-scale. Genesis is an ancient scripture of unknown origin.

While Genesis gives a good background on the origin of mankind and early faith, we do not have to depend on it
when it comes to accuracy, and shouldn't take it literally, imo.

When we say billions of years, or millions of years ago, it is measured relative to our assumptions that time is definitive.
In reality, it is mankind that defines what time is in our assumption of basic physical quantity.
Without making those basic definitions, we could not measure anything ! :)
 
muhammad_isa said:
When we say billions of years, or millions of years ago, it is measured relative to our assumptions that time is definitive.
Click to expand...
I never quite understand where you are going with this. Subjective time can seem to pass slowly or quickly, but objective time is measured in hours and years, by radioactive decay etc. A million years is a million years, and a billion years is a thousand million years. It's not a malleable quality?
 
RJM Corbet said:
I never quite understand where you are going with this. Subjective time can seem to pass slowly or quickly, but objective time is measured in hours and years, by radioactive decay etc. A million years is a million years, and a billion years is a thousand million years. It's not a malleable quality?
Click to expand...

I know. Most people don't understand what I'm saying. They see time as "unchanging" .. something measurble etc.

I am of course, referring to our definition of physical time..
There have only ever been three definitions of the second: as a fraction of the day, as a fraction of an extrapolated year, and as the microwave frequency of a caesium atomic clock
- wiki -

..so when did we observe this second of time? Now? A billion years ago? When exactly? :D
..or are we just assuming that "time is absolute" ?

I think you'll find that it is no more absolute than space in an expanding universe.
Science is dependent on our observations, and it is necessary to make many assumptions.
We shouldn't forget that. God forbid, we might start thinking that this world is real ;)
 
muhammad_isa said:
Science is dependent on our observations, and it is necessary to make many assumptions.
Click to expand...
Can you explain more clearly?

We measure time in a way that works in practice: a year is a full rotation around the sun. It works for aircraft, computers, and against relativity beyond the Earth for spacecraft and satellite GPS etc. A second on Earth is a second and an hour is 60 minutes. It works in practice.

There's no call to discard it in relation to fossils and geological strata? A second was still a second a billion years ago. Or was it not?
 
RJM Corbet said:
..It works for aircraft, computers, and against relativity beyond the Earth for spacecraft and satellite GPS etc. A second on Earth is a second and an hour is 60 minutes. It works in practice..
Click to expand...

Of course it does. However, in relation to billions of years ago, or billions of years into the future, it is only an ASSUMPTION that it is meaningful in the way that we envisage it to be.
i.e. is time linear and absolute over billions of years?

If one imagines a graph of time from the big-bang up until now, would it be a straight line?
We know it's a straight line over a few centuries, but that would be equivalent to the gradient on a curve. :)

RJM Corbet said:
There's no call to discard it in relation to fossils and geological strata? A second was still a second a billion years ago. Or was it not?
Click to expand...

I don't know what billions of years means to you, but to me, I wonder what is expanding exactly.
Yes .. the universe .. and the universe is a space-time continuum :)
 
Still not clear. Disregarding cosmic time, just for now: does it imply that fossil and geological deposits could have happened at any time in the past -- not necessarily at the time they appear to have occurred? They could be younger, because time itself may move in mysteriously unpredictable ways?
 
My problem is not with the validity of geological timespans. I do not question the validity of science itself. I observe that science comes up against a timespace wall beyond which it cannot function. I do not in general question the validity of the actual science.

I accept it when using my phone, or looking at the beautiful Hubble telescope images, etc. I have no call to suddenly dispute it when it seems to disagree with whatever scripture I choose to adhere to.

Cosmology is full of questions such as dark energy, etc. It's a moving and growing application. But I cannot dismiss the validity of the science because I don't like the conclusions

My ten cents worth ...
 
Last edited:
wil said:
Thinking the biblical belief requires one to think Adam and Eve story is real is like thinking there is a mouse with an elephant head.
Click to expand...
The descent of Spirit into nature, imo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top