Typical amd argument again- amd says “Do you suppose you have a superior understanding of the ramifications of relativity than Einstein?” Where did I say or imply this one!
There is not a 100% resolution on any scientific issue and never will be- amd says “how pompous and presumptuous of you to assume I was saying there was such resolution.” You may not say it but your evolution statements indicate a very strong belief/hope in this ‘science’ which btw is not science at all.
You simply can not reproduce any of the macro-evo history that is often claimed to be factually proven.
amd “But Geocentrism is just not possible given what we know about gravity - there is no model consistent with gravity that would make it work.” keywords here are ‘given what we know’ and some of what we ‘know’ is assumed and extrapolated rather than observed and measured.
Case in point in the superiority of a scientific rather than a superstitious outlook on reality.
Creationism and Geocentrism are part and parcel of the same mindset - one that prefers an eccentric theology to reliable scientific models, data and observation.
That is why science is of use while creationism is useless.
I mean, heck, being a creationist - you may as well just reject the reality of the Earth going around the Sun while you are at it!
Too funny.
Thanks for the good laugh this morning! I am in your debt! :)
"....in the ultimate sense, science is the reduction of objective multiplicity to subjective unity. But the only reason this is possible is because the human intellect mirrors the unity of creation. Our mind operates the way it does because we live in a cosmos, which is to say, an ordered totality. And the cosmos is an ordered totality because it exhibits "nonlocal" internal relations. Because of this, every part of the cosmos embodies and participates in the whole, just as every gene contains the blueprint for the whole body. Again, the cosmos is thoroughly entangled with itself, which is why we may know anything .... It is how and why Man may be the microcosmos that he is.
Now, metaphysics is all about first principles. .... my intention is to have a completely consistent metaphysic, so that, in order to answer any question, I need only "return to first principles" to answer it. In this sense, Darwinism is a lie, because it cannot furnish any consistent first principles. In fact, whenever a committed Darwinist tries, they end up making self-refuting statements right out of the box....
But so too, in my opinion, do literal "creationists." Of course you are free to insist upon young earth creationism, but you must know that it is going to contradict so much evidence that you will essentially have to split your mind in two. You will live in a scientific world with all of its blessings, and yet, a part of you will have to reject it, or at least not be able to fully integrate it into your belief system. ....
....For better or worse, the way my mind is built, it seeks unity or wholeness, which is a very different thing from "unicity." In other words, to simply accept an ideology -- whether scientific or religious -- and superimpose it on the world would be an example of unicity. Such a worldview will be "consistent" but it will not be complete, as it will necessarily have to omit a lot of details and anomalies.
Or, I could accept both science and religion, and not worry about the lack of reconciliation. Such a world view will be more complete, but it will lack consistency.
[We wish] to have a maximum of completeness and consistency -- at least as much as Gödel will allow. Which is a lot, once you accept the implications of his theorems, one of which is that truth is prior to our fragmentary logical "proofs" of it.
Two (of the many) interesting comments:
7/30/2008 11:27:00 PM Magnus Itland said...
"I have no doubt that there is a good scientific explanation for macroevolution. Why? Because this is God's mode of operation. He does not resort to "magic" unless it is to make an important point. Notice in the Gospels how each miracle is a sign with a deeper meaning, which nourishes the soul. I see the same thing in my own life. The way things happen at the right time and place is virtually never "magic" but always miraculous. I also see the same thing in history. Look at how various prophecies are fulfilled without the use of vulgar magic. It would simply be out of character for God to use magic to create the species when he could make an understandable process for it. The latter would simply be a more intelligent design.
In other words, macroevolution is inherently understandable (given enough data) because it is part of cosmos, and cosmos is understandable because it is made by God, and we were made in his image. God's "reason" in the material world is understandable by humans and not by any other species. How is that not proof of God and of a "special creation" (in one sense of the word at least) of the human spirit?
The universe will always be mysterious beyond our understanding; but the fact that we can understand it at all is an even greater mystery."
8/04/2008 10:41:00 AM Ray Ingles said...
- The point is that a "species" is a fuzzy concept. The gulls on either end of the ring are so different that they can't interbreed. The only reason they are considered to be the same species is the existence of the intermediates that they can interbreed with. If there's an 'archetype' that governs species, then the boundaries between them in the real world are fuzzy, and can be crossed.
Once you understand that, the transitions in the fossil record leap out at you.