Why do theists reject evolution?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Xelasnave.1947, Apr 11, 2020.

  1. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,848
    Thanks for the link. I found one from 2009, about emergence of patterns in nature, which is to say the least very bold in its claims. http://www.ijdb.ehu.es/web/paper.php?doi=092936rh

    The proposition is that nature tends to select for configurations with as much functionality as possible - whatever "function*" means in such a context. It attempts to define something called functional information and then gives examples of how this can be applied to various biological systems. I read this with growing scepticism, as it seemed to me his characterisation of function appears a bit tendentious, subjective and teleological. He doesn't seem to do a very thorough job of showing how his concept can be utilised to explain first of all how the patterns of inanimate nature arise, let alone that they are somehow selected for among the other possible arrangements, before jumping on to the biological examples. I have difficulty seeing how "function" or "functional information" can be associated with a galaxy or a sand dune (to use two examples he employs in opening sections of the paper) in a way that is not arbitrary and subjective. To me, claiming a galaxy has a function is a teleological claim and not appropriate.


    * WARNING: The word "function" is one concerning which Write4U has a mental block. He is incapable of distinguishing between its physical sense, in the "function" of a physical system and its mathematical, f(x), sense. It is extremely unproductive to get into any discussion with him which involves this word, as he will flip-flop between the two meanings, as needed, in order to further his "mathematical universe" religious agenda.
     
    Yazata, river and Hipparchia like this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,202
    * WARNING: exchemist does not read my posts (I'm on his ignore list). Therefore any statement he makes about my understanding of anything is a total figment of his prejudicial imagination. He is now gratuitously pulling ad hominems out of his ass.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2020
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,029
    OK I can go with that BU BUT BUT instead of posting
    only post what I find interesting ****
    Which sounds like
    TRY
    only post what I find interesting ****
    Which sounds like
    HINT HINT HINT **** these are the same "what I find interesting"
    Ever considered what YOU have found as a new shiny bauble someone else knows more about the bauble than yourself?

    Case - recently mentioned in this thread was "How clay might have played on role in the formation of DNA. The was considered to be possible because the matrix of clay seemed to match DNA, perhaps a set of chemicals was fitted together by accident in said matrix and BINGO found itself alive". Good pick up

    I READ ABOUT THAT ABOUT 5 YEARS AGO. Not seen anything else about the idea until now. So I am thinking "Ummmm not read anything past five years so, for me, why is this old news being dragged up as being cutting edge?

    WHY???? If others are only seeing what YOU believe in might fit with the impression
    Ummm ironic you don't see in yourself what you see in others

    Will you apply a tranche of my post to your future post?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Hipparchia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    I wish you had posted this earlier, then all of my posts on the matter would have been superflous. Cheers.
    (Although, on reflection, I suspect your post will also be superflous in the sense that Write4U will either misunderstand it or ignore it.)
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,202
    Well, the Hazen lecture at Carnegie does address that little bauble of the surface area of clay as being the ideal medium for chemical activity.
    It all rests on the surface area of clay. Did you know that a cubic cm of clay has enough surface area to coat an entire tennis court? How's that for a bauble? I considered that a "good pick up" on my part. Do you agree?

    p.s. (conservative estimate); Hazen calculates that the earth has about 500,000 cubic km of clay minerals and if that information is extrapolated over the life of earth, the earth has performed some: 2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion chemical spontaneous chemical reactions during its lifetime. I consider that a "bauble".

    My links are full with "baubles". That's why I share them for public consumption, which is often dismissed by some, as a post by a moron who has no inkling of science and the scientific method. Then someone comes up with the exact same bauble that I have been talking about and it becomes the Holy f....g Grail because there is a paper on file.
    Now do you understand my use of the term "entrenched"?

    And to add insult to injury, I am the one being accused as a religious nutcase, because I dare agree with Tegmark that mathematical functions are a logical potential of spacetime ????????

    What a cheap and duplicitous way of attacking a person's character and integrity. It is disgusting and sometimes makes me wonder if my baubles are just "pearls before swine"...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2020
  9. Hipparchia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    Tranche perfectly describes what I wished to convey. Reference the third meaning in this online dictionary:

    A slice, section or portion.

    Let's substitute that into the sentence you fatuously object to:

    There are two possible explanations for that slice, section or portion of nonsense.

    Why that is exactly what I was aiming for. Based upon my limited observation of your posts, supplemented by assessments of other members (who appear to be reasonable, objective and logical in their posts), you are prone to posting nonsense. The specific nonsense I am commenting on is thus a mere slice, section or portion of your cornucopia of nonsense, in short - a tranche of nonsense.

    I readily admit my writing will include:
    • Thoughtless errors, such as "their" for "there"
    • Typing errors, such as "nissing" for "missing".
    • Careless errors, such as missing punctuation.
    • Catch up errors - wherein I change my mind mid-sentence as to precise structure and overlook the now inappropriate words I have typed.
    However, I rarely - oh, so very rarely - choose the wrong word to convey what I mean. Any failure in conveying meaning will be down to inadequate structure, or bombast, or a third rate audience.

    So you assume that:
    • I do not have dyslexia
    • I am a native English speaker
    • I have not suffered one or more strokes
    You spoke earlier, I think, of being competent at critical analysis. Your assumption here belies that claim. Still, I've sprinkled this post with a few words that may be less familiar to you. Feel free to try to demonstrate that my word choice in those instances is faulty. However, I suggest you do this in a separate thread as this is way off-topic.
     
  10. Hipparchia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    So, in essence, he is evoking Aristotle's Final Cause and equating it to Function? If that is the case I'm not totally averse to that usage.

    Assuming we live in a Godless Universe the answer to the question "What is the purpose of life?" becomes "Whatever we make of it." And the Purpose, Final Cause or Function of a galaxy is what it is/does. Just some of-the-cuff thoughts.

    But the nice thing about his speculations is that they do seem thought provoking. I will have a deeper look at that paper. Cheers.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  11. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,848
    Yes, I thought in some ways he might be getting at the same sort of thing as Jeremy English, in that he has the idea that gradients in an environment provoke order and patterns. But he didn't develop that idea enough, for my taste, in inorganic settings first. (Of course it is in a way not surprising that gradients lead to ordering, since the symmetry of the environment has been reduced and one expects some alignments in consequence.)

    I do feel both of them may be onto something with these ideas, but it doesn't feel to me as if we yet have a real principle to latch onto. That paper was in 2009 so I wonder what has come of it since.
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,202
    How about a "tranche of bread" or a "tranche of bullshit".

    Great, I learned a new phrase. Thank you. I'll be sure to use it next time.......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2020
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,202
    Oh, I am soooo tempted, but I will restrain myself .......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Hipparchia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    Why bother? There is little evidence that you normally do. Go for it.
     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,202
    You missed the one that really counts. AD HOMINEM! And the only one I respond to "in kind".

    I consider that "faulty" under all circumstances, unless perhaps if you are Autistic.


    I can live with any and all of the other reasons. I make mistakes also.
    But I'll never intentionally attack someone's character, intelligence, or lack of credentials, in order to gain a debate advantage.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2020
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,202
    I am responsible for this "off topic" segue, that is taking almost an entire page?
    How about following your own "suggestion"...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Hipparchia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    I have made no ad hominem. My critique of your presentation style (not your writing style as you erroneously claimed) is is directly pertinent to the discussion, since it underpins the error in your assertions.
    I don't generally do ad hominems, but if I did you would provide fertile ground.
    Of course you are. As am I. I accept the responsibility, you seem to wish to reject it. Quelle suprise!
    On some forums it is against the rules, or certainly against etiquette to announce that someone will be placed on Ignore. I don't know if that is the case here, but I feel it is simply courteous to inform the subject so that they are not puzzled by the absence of replies to their posts. Consider yourself so informed.
     
    billvon likes this.
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,202
    We have another convert!!!!! How quaint.

    p.s. being that you used the term "superfluous" in another ad hominem, I will bring your attention to your misspelling of the word "superfluous".

    If you are going to critique (insult) my "writing style", perhaps you may want to use proper English to begin with.
    This is just too easy.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2020
  19. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,848
    Ah so you have decided to join the club.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Based on the Physical Real Objects .

    It doesn't support you mathematical based Universe .

    Whats your point Write4U .
     
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,202
    I'm sure you have heard of Heisenberg.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg

    That's the point river, mainstream science...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2020
  22. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    They were wrong Write4U . The whole lot of them .

    The smallest units of matter are Physical Real Objects . Nothing is the consequence of this thinking becoming something . Which is not possible . Something can never transform into nothing .
     
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,202
    Have you any idea of how fast science is evolving?
    That is exactly what Hazen demonstrates. Three years ago.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    A network diagram for 403 carbon minerals reveals previously hidden patterns in their diversity and distribution.
    https://hazen.carnegiescience.edu/press-release-08012017

    Mineralogy is now also using the statistical models of "Large Number of Rare Event" (LNRE) distribution.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_number_of_rare_events
     

Share This Page