Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If Evolution was proved beyond doubt...
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 106 of 114 (212678)
05-30-2005 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by randman
05-30-2005 3:20 PM


Re: TOPICALITY
The OP says:
What does everyone think?
By all means, lets take off-topic discussions elsewhere, but don't try to make this thread exclusive to "people that believe in Genesis".
And certainly don't try to make it exclusive to people who share your view of Genesis.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by randman, posted 05-30-2005 3:20 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by randman, posted 05-30-2005 5:00 PM ringo has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 107 of 114 (212692)
05-30-2005 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by ringo
05-30-2005 3:37 PM


Re: TOPICALITY
Ringo, the OP is what does everyone think about the issue of how would proof of evolution affect people's faith.
The point of discussion is not whether some think people of faith are incorrect, but how would they react.
Upon my explaining one reaction, some here obviously feel the need to try to pick a fight and claim that somehow my faith is wrong, and although I can defend my beliefs, in light of the OP, one proper reaction to some here would be to be very dismissive of them because they are not attempting to address the topic, but merely cannot restrain themselves to even properly understand why someone of faith might not feel threatened, in terms of their beliefs, even if common descent were inarguably demonstrated as true.
I posted a little about that, and about the only responses are to go over old ground, and old arguments, that I and most beleivers find unpersuasive, from the skeptics camp.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by ringo, posted 05-30-2005 3:37 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by ringo, posted 05-30-2005 5:47 PM randman has replied

  
AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 114 (212701)
05-30-2005 5:45 PM


Back in the saddle again....
Thors O.P. writes:
If God were to appear in the sky and announce to the world that the Bible is in fact literally true, and the world and all life was created in 6 days, I would think that even the most outspoken evolutionists would have to stand up, red-faced, and say Ok, I was wrong. So which way is Hell? Oh yeah, down I guess.
Suppose things went the other way, however. What if irrefutable evidence was found that supported evolution?... it doesn’t even really matter what the actual evidence may be. We just need to imagine it as proof beyond doubt of evolution. Would die-hard ID’ers and creationists (or even just ordinary religious people who take the Bible’s word for it) argue that God actually created that irrefutable evidence so that the ‘unfaithful’ would be led away from God by this manufactured evidence and only the truly faithful would see through it. What does everyone think?
What does everyone think? This includes believers and non-believers.
Carry on, peeps.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
Forum Guidelines

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 109 of 114 (212702)
05-30-2005 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by randman
05-30-2005 5:00 PM


Re: TOPICALITY
I object to being characterized as a "skeptic". My purpose in questioning you was to try to point out that other views are possible without rejecting the Bible.
How does that relate to the topic? My opinion, in answer to the topic, is that people who take a very doctrinaire approach to the Bible will not change their minds when presented with any evidence, whether scientific or Biblical.
I may not have made that clear, and we did stray from the topic, for which I take my share of the blame. Of course, you illustrated my point beautifully.
If you really think you can defend your views, lets take it to a more appropriate topic.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by randman, posted 05-30-2005 5:00 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by randman, posted 05-30-2005 5:56 PM ringo has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 110 of 114 (212707)
05-30-2005 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by ringo
05-30-2005 5:47 PM


Re: TOPICALITY
I'll be glad to post on other topics, if appropiate and am already engaged in a number of discussions.
The following is the first post of mine on this thread, which may be helpful to put some later points on the thread in context.
"In such a situation, how would faith stand up to it?"
Faith stands up to it quite easily. In fact, if look at science overall, particularly the discoveries in quantum physics such as entanglement, links between consciousness and matter, fundamentals of all things being information (In the beginning was the Word), the Big Bang, etc,....you actually find science confirms the basic biblical view of reality, and incidentally the view of reality found in many spiritual traditions. The old Newtonian paradigm is falling. It's probably incorrect, for example, to claim that the energy of thoughts are different than the energy that forms the core of physical things. It's all more or less energy, and it all interacts. "You reap what you sow" is an old saying that science is beginning to develop a factual basis for demonstrating.
So what about evolution and the creation story?
Well, first off, to think the theory of common descent which is what people are thinking of disproves the Bible is to assume that the past is static. Personally, I think that is a huge and erroneous assumption, especially in light of modern physics.
Vedral and Bukner, for example, have shown that particles can be entangled over segments of time. I "caught it" at first, but maybe one of the more scientifically trained people here can explain how they show that better.
But regardless of what science has begun to show, it is an assumption that time flows linearly only, and not "spatially" as well. (Edit to add the term "flow" is an illustration for the basic concept in everyday terms, but not really meant to convey that time itself "flows") In other words, common descent is based on the idea that causal events only affect things forward in time.
Is that correct though?
The principle of entanglement demonstrates information being transferred superluminally, and thus at a different time-flow than the surrounding world.
Wave/particle duality demonstrates in double-split experiments that consciousness mysteriously is necessary for matter to take on a definite form, that consciousness somehow is connected to and has a determinative role in the formation of matter. (added: There are other alternative explanations, but consciousness-based interpretations have held a lot of water among quantum physicists, and from what I have read, consciousness-based models are the dominant interpretation of what we observe).
Where am I going?
Well, we know when man fell that the Bible says God cursed the earth, and later the Bible suggests perhaps the whole universe, or at least parts of "the heavens themselves" were changed.
Hmmm.....
So death enters, and all sorts of changes occur, even perhaps changes in physical laws. That's what the Bible suggests or states happened.
So God changed the universe as a result of the consciousness of man falling? Did he do that from time forward, or did He do that from the beginning forward?
In other words, look at the creation and development of the universe or multi-verse, as a movie with God as the Director and Producer.
Maybe instead of changing things as if by magic, poof, from that time forward, maybe the fall of man's consiouscess affected the entire universe backwards and forwards in time, and incidentally the reserruction of man's consciousness might one day do the same.
I think if you read the Bible closely and think about God's ways, that it makes sense that God changed the universe by changing it from the foundation forward. God is not limited by time.
In that context, it is possible for both special creation and common descent to have occured, and it is possible, imo, for any combination of the 2.
Heck, it's completely possible, and I believe we will discover this, that the past is changing and not static even today. That may be a revolutionary concept, but I think because the changes are slow, we are slow to detect it, but will one day see that both the past, present, and future are affected by actions and changes.
Certainly, the linear changes are more easily seen, and dominant, but that does not mean that non-linear action is not occuring and changing the time-line gradually and those changes add up over time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by ringo, posted 05-30-2005 5:47 PM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by CK, posted 05-30-2005 6:20 PM randman has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 111 of 114 (212712)
05-30-2005 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by randman
05-30-2005 5:56 PM


Re: TOPICALITY
quote:
Heck, it's completely possible, and I believe we will discover this, that the past is changing and not static even today. That may be a revolutionary concept, but I think because the changes are slow, we are slow to detect it, but will one day see that both the past, present, and future are affected by actions and changes.
Certainly, the linear changes are more easily seen, and dominant, but that does not mean that non-linear action is not occuring and changing the time-line gradually and those changes add up over time.
John? John Titor? is that you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by randman, posted 05-30-2005 5:56 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Thor, posted 05-30-2005 9:33 PM CK has not replied

  
Thor
Member (Idle past 5911 days)
Posts: 148
From: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 12-20-2004


Message 112 of 114 (212729)
05-30-2005 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by CK
05-30-2005 6:20 PM


Re: TOPICALITY
John? John Titor? is that you?
LOL

On the 7th day, God was arrested.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by CK, posted 05-30-2005 6:20 PM CK has not replied

  
Thor
Member (Idle past 5911 days)
Posts: 148
From: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 12-20-2004


Message 113 of 114 (212731)
05-30-2005 9:48 PM


Well, things have certainly been happening here! Sorry I haven’t been around since starting the thread, I’ve had a very busy week and have hardly had time to go near the computer. So I’ll reply to a couple of points that have been raised.
I agree wholeheartedly with those who earlier on suggested that evolution has indeed been proved beyond any reasonable doubt. I also fully appreciate that as a scientific theory, it cannot be proven.
Remember, this whole question is a hypothetical one. There are plenty of people out there who use all the common creationist arguments, and plenty of others that follow along with it. These people have a certain amount of influence, enough in fact to take the debate to the level where it is argued whether ID/creation should be taught in schools. So, my thinking was, what if something came along that completely blew all those usual pro-creation arguments right out of the water? What if even the Hovinds of the world would have to admit that the particular evidence presented supports evolution and not creation? What then for Creationism?
From Berberry:
Spend about 20 minutes there and you'll understand why your idea is absurd (I don't mean to be insulting, only accurate).
No insult taken, in fact I agree, and I respect your adherence to science (I am a science student after all). In real life, it is somewhat absurd. But all the good topics seem to have already been well established, so I thought I’d go off the beaten track a little and come up with a different angle, just to provoke a little speculative not-necessarily-scientific discussion, and I just happen to like ‘what-if’ scenarios. This is more about examining faith and belief and the thinking/mentality behind it, rather than scientific realities.
From MangyTiger:
I actually know someone (a recently born-again Christian) who seriously claims that fossils were put there by the Devil.
Dude, that is definitely NOT good. It’s crap like that that makes me wonder if such ideas could become more common. If one person can come to such a conclusion (though it’s anyone’s guess how or why, maybe it’s what 'the voices' told him/her to believe!), then why not others? Science and technology may be progressing, but the religious right is also growing in power and influence, and might they promote such nonsense if their current arguments were wiped out? I think it is possible they would, and even more unsettling is that I reckon they would still have plenty of followers, as they do now. I don’t think it would matter how undeniable evolution was, they would just keep ‘moving the goalposts’.
Randman, your idea of the past being constantly changing is an interesting one I’ll grant. However I would consider it more within the realm of science fiction, as I personally don’t find it a sufficient explanation of the origins of life, the universe and everything. It seems too much like an all-purpose Goddidit idea. However, what you have done is answered my question with regard to how faith would stand up to (hypothetical) certainty of evolution. I’d say it would, because the Goddidit argument can be modified to explain any scenario it is up against.

On the 7th day, God was arrested.

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by randman, posted 05-31-2005 2:55 AM Thor has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 114 of 114 (212766)
05-31-2005 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Thor
05-30-2005 9:48 PM


Thor, the past not being static comment is not really about origins directly, but does touch on the concept of uniformatarianism, which evolutionary theory resides on. The assumptions of uniformatarianism are just that, assumptions based on limited observations.
What we are finding with increases in technology along with increases in math and theory, over the past 100 years, is that sometimes such "everyday" assumptions and observables lead to incorrect conclusions, and even incorrect concepts of physical and scientific laws.
I like to use the principle of quantum tunneling to illustrate this. If one were to claim, for instance, that they saw a ball thrown against a wall, and it went right through it without ever seeming to make contact with the wall, most would have at one time said that could not happen since it is against the laws of physical reality or some such. It would be considered impossible based on classical physics.
But quantum physics states the opposite, that in fact it is a physical law that there is always the possibility that the ball could tunnel right through the wall without damaging the ball or the wall in anyway. Admittedly, this is a highly unlikely event and one could question the observer if it actually happened based on it being so unlikely.
But for illustration, the point remains the same. A basic assumption built upon all of the observable and empirical evidence, upon the laws of classical physics, has now been proven wrong when technology enabled us to gather new perspectives on physical reality.
In fact, I suspect if someone did an experiment and threw a ball at a wall 10 million times or some absurdly high number, the ball would always bounce back or break the wall, and the logic of uniformatarian and classical thought, or the logic of "linear" thought for lack of a better term, would make someone "believe beyond a shadow of a doubt" as you put it concerning evolution, that a ball could not magically tunnel through, say, a wooden wall, but they would nonetheless be wrong.
What quantum physics does is turn some basic concepts of what constitutes material and even logic upside down.
Unfortunately, science has not yet tested my idea that the past changes. I do think we will discover and test for that in science one day, but what we are doing sufficiently upsets the apple-cart that we would be wise to reexamine the logic we use in considering whether something is true.
Heck, take the concept that something can only be in one place at one time. That seems so logical based on everyday experience, but there are things that can be in 2 places at once, and then only occupy one space and back again, and seem to defy what we see normally in everyday life.
I submit that the basic tenet of uniformatarianism has been challenged by the discoveries mentioned above, and needs revision.
This message has been edited by randman, 05-31-2005 03:01 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Thor, posted 05-30-2005 9:48 PM Thor has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024