Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Evolution is a myth? Please explain:

Can't be done. Back to, "Do you exist?" (That is as an individual apart from all other individuals i.e. not a sock puppet) There must be a presumption of existence for you to even consider the question.

Actually that is a current and open question. Though I don't know what that has to do with what you quoted.

Look into terminal consciousness.

In any case the question would be valid whether you are aware or not. But the point is that to engage even in the contemplation of philosophy you must assume that there is something capable of contemplation. Or more broadly certain assumptions must be (carefully) made before the question posed can be rationally discussed.

The point on terminal lucidity is that consciousness seems to involve more than brain function. Credible reports that people who have insufficient brain function become lucid for the last day or so. Nobody knows exactly what's going on, but something unexpected is.

The key word is 'infinite' - it is the meaning and signifance of the word that sets the terms, not me.

Infinite goodness means absolute goodness, which means the absence of badness or evil.

Something that is partly bad cannot be described as infinitely or absolutely good.

It is not being pointed out that - ''the mathematical, logical and statistical evidence all require a self-existent eternal Designer to bring things miraculously into existence because science proves that it cannot happen any other way. All the evidence is there to logically require the existence of God'' - that is something that is being claimed and asserted. A false assertion.

It has been pointed out that this claim is false and the reasons why it is false have been given. Yet the claim is repeated and asserted time and time again regardless.

''A new mathematical model developed by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania has offered even more evidence of the correctness of evolutionary theory.

Herbert Wilf, Penn’s Thomas A. Scott Emeritus Professor of Mathematics, and Warren Ewens, emeritus professor of biology, say their model directly challenges the long-standing contention among some doubters that evolution couldn't have happened because the small changes in species outlined by the theory simply would have taken too much time to be completed.''


''Their works shows that, under a very reasonable model of mutations and natural selection, the time required to evolve a very complex organism is vastly smaller than might be presumed. As a result, the idea that evolution would require "too much time" to be true is proved false''


"If, when we guess the full string of letters [for a new species], one of the letters is correct — for instance, one that describes correctly the eyes of a butterfly — then that letter has survival value," he said.

"It will not be discarded as future mutations take place because the intermediate creatures are seeing very well, and they will live and reproduce. So although it seems at first glance that the process of random mutations will take a very long time to produce a higher organism, thanks to the spying of natural selection, the process can go very rapidly.''

Not talking about near death experiences. Try Googling "terminal lucidity". Fascinating phenomena.

This still doesn't help the cause any because it simply follows one track of change. How does the whole universe come into being in the right state at the right time to support all the interdependent life structures and the environment itself which needs to be finely tuned to support life. Those studies only demonstrate that they cannot address the whole issue because they are stupefied by trying to address one minuscule part of minutia and making it work. It doesn't matter when you start evolution after the Big Bang--it still has the same unsolvable problems.

This still doesn't help the cause any because it simply follows one track of change. How does the whole universe come into being in the right state at the right time to support all the interdependent life structures and the environment itself which needs to be finely tuned to support life. Those studies only demonstrate that they cannot address the whole issue because they are stupefied by trying to address one minuscule part of minutia and making it work. It doesn't matter when you start evolution after the Big Bang--it still has the same unsolvable problems.

It doesn't matter when you start evolution after the Big Bang--it still has the same unsolvable problems.

It's much easier to wonder, and try and talk about other sciences, than it is to justify the waste of time that is the theory of evolution, isn't it

Why don't we just stick to the theory of evolution, and all its practical uses?

You start.

Logic without evidence proves nothing. The logic may be sound but if the propositions are flawed, the conclusion does not relate to the real world. You can apply logic to anything, Comic book Superheros, the strengths and weaknesses of Batman....


Problem of evil

''Aquinas dismissed the problem of evil by saying: 'This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that he should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.''

If you're about to protest that infinite goodness, by definition, wouldn't allow evil to exist, you're not alone.''

As for the assumption of God;


The Argument of the Unmoved Mover

''This cosmological argument asserts that God must be the cause of all movement in the Universe. Aquinas contends that an infinite regress of movers is impossible, meaning that there must be an unmoved mover that initiated all motion - and that this mover is called God. One could just as easily call the first mover "Charlie", or any other preferred name, since the argument does not establish that the "unmoved mover" has any of the characteristics that are usually associated with the concept of God, such as consciousness, benevolence, omnipotence, or a proclivity to intervene in our universe. Far from proving that the Christian God exists, the most the argument can do is lend some support to a sort of weak deism, but without even necessitating the continued existence of the "first mover" which could just as easily have been the Big Bang as any preferred deity.''

The key being ''infinite goodness'' - the presence of evil means that goodness is not infinite. The presence of evil means that God is part good, part evil

It does more than just follw one track of change. Evolutionary theory explores the mechanisms of evolution, genetic, epigenetic, molecular, etc, the environment driving adaption and change - none of which indicates special creation or the hand of 'God' at work, just life forns adapting to their environmental niche or role in the ecosystem.

If the hand of God (whatever that is) is at work, that needs to be shown, not just claimed or asserted.

It's not known whether time had a beginning or not, the BB may be cyclic, brane collision, a patchwork multiverse or any number of other possibilities...or something not yet imagined. If a God, whatever that is, created the universe there is no evidence for it. Stars, galaxies and solar systems form on the basis of physics, they are not created, they form under gravity and matter/energy interaction, so it is not necessary to propose the existence of a Creator yet alone be convinced that this is fact true.