RE: Why shouldn't I believe in uniformitarian naturalism?
View related threads:
(in this forum
| in all forums)
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Why shouldn't I believe in uniformitarian naturalism? - 1/14/2010 12:39:59 PM
|
|
|
shakezula
Posts: 657
Joined: 3/9/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Is that any less "scientific" than the faith-based assumption that they evolved over millions of years from proto-marsupial? There's not one shred of evidence to support that concept either, but "scientists" cling desparately to it in the guise of empirical provable "science".
creationism believes that animals evolved our thousands of years from a proto-marsupial. so i don't see any difference except time.
_____________________________
watch out for the oo moo and the blehblehbleh
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why shouldn't I believe in uniformitarian naturalism? - 1/14/2010 12:45:29 PM
|
|
|
tacitus
Posts: 2581
Joined: 5/12/2005
Status: offline
|
And thus, ironically, creationists believe that evolutionary change happened at a far, far, greater rate than the evolutionists themselves would say was possible.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why shouldn't I believe in uniformitarian naturalism? - 1/14/2010 1:01:18 PM
|
|
|
Ohioman1972
Posts: 416
Joined: 8/20/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tacitus
And thus, ironically, creationists believe that evolutionary change happened at a far, far, greater rate than the evolutionists themselves would say was possible.
But that brings us back to the flood theory and "kinds" and macro/micro evolution. And both topics are on a different thread.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why shouldn't I believe in uniformitarian naturalism? - 1/14/2010 1:11:50 PM
|
|
|
embracing_sonship
Posts: 36
Joined: 7/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tacitus
And thus, ironically, creationists believe that evolutionary change happened at a far, far, greater rate than the evolutionists themselves would say was possible.
whoa, whoa there! I may not participate in these threads much since I would not consider myself an avid scientist, but your presuppositions of Creationist belief are in error. I believe the term you are looking for here is de-evlolution, as most Creationsists believe we have devolved from two sinless beings inhabiting all possible genetic traits.
quote:
That's fine, if you want it that way, but once you stick "God did it" into everything you can't explain or didn't witness, they let's not pretend we're still doing science (or anything remotely related to it).
Explain to me how this is different than the evolutionary crutch of "it happened a billion years ago"?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why shouldn't I believe in uniformitarian naturalism? - 1/14/2010 2:03:47 PM
|
|
|
Ohioman1972
Posts: 416
Joined: 8/20/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: embracing_sonship
quote:
ORIGINAL: tacitus
And thus, ironically, creationists believe that evolutionary change happened at a far, far, greater rate than the evolutionists themselves would say was possible.
whoa, whoa there! I may not participate in these threads much since I would not consider myself an avid scientist, but your presuppositions of Creationist belief are in error. I believe the term you are looking for here is de-evolution, as most Creationists believe we have devolved from two sinless beings inhabiting all possible genetic traits.
quote:
That's fine, if you want it that way, but once you stick "God did it" into everything you can't explain or didn't witness, they let's not pretend we're still doing science (or anything remotely related to it).
Explain to me how this is different than the evolutionary crutch of "it happened a billion years ago"?
You forgot to add ... and because it took that long, it is possible for people to be traced back to a bacterium, which can be traced back to a protein chain, which can be traced back to an amino acid, which was spontaneously generated.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why shouldn't I believe in uniformitarian naturalism? - 1/14/2010 2:42:54 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 584
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: embracing_sonship
quote:
ORIGINAL: tacitus
And thus, ironically, creationists believe that evolutionary change happened at a far, far, greater rate than the evolutionists themselves would say was possible.
whoa, whoa there! I may not participate in these threads much since I would not consider myself an avid scientist, but your presuppositions of Creationist belief are in error. I believe the term you are looking for here is de-evlolution, as most Creationsists believe we have devolved from two sinless beings inhabiting all possible genetic traits.
No, actually tacitus is correct. We creationists do believe that evolution must have happened rapidly because we believe that two of each kind disembarked 4400 years ago. Unless we have the wrong definition of "kind" that means that a lot of changes have to have come about in a comparatively small amount of time. I'm certain that what we believe is absolutely a viable evolutionary possibility because evolutionary changes require little to no change in the genetic material.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why shouldn't I believe in uniformitarian naturalism? - 1/14/2010 2:46:45 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 584
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ohioman1972
quote:
ORIGINAL: embracing_sonship
quote:
ORIGINAL: tacitus
And thus, ironically, creationists believe that evolutionary change happened at a far, far, greater rate than the evolutionists themselves would say was possible.
whoa, whoa there! I may not participate in these threads much since I would not consider myself an avid scientist, but your presuppositions of Creationist belief are in error. I believe the term you are looking for here is de-evolution, as most Creationists believe we have devolved from two sinless beings inhabiting all possible genetic traits.
quote:
That's fine, if you want it that way, but once you stick "God did it" into everything you can't explain or didn't witness, they let's not pretend we're still doing science (or anything remotely related to it).
Explain to me how this is different than the evolutionary crutch of "it happened a billion years ago"?
You forgot to add ... and because it took that long, it is possible for people to be traced back to a bacterium, which can be traced back to a protein chain, which can be traced back to an amino acid, which was spontaneously generated.
Or a unicorn, whichever. It's actually currently popular to believe that life started as RNA, not protein. RNA can have both enzymatic and information-storing capacity.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why shouldn't I believe in uniformitarian naturalism? - 1/15/2010 1:09:25 PM
|
|
|
embracing_sonship
Posts: 36
Joined: 7/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: embracing_sonship
quote:
ORIGINAL: tacitus
And thus, ironically, creationists believe that evolutionary change happened at a far, far, greater rate than the evolutionists themselves would say was possible.
whoa, whoa there! I may not participate in these threads much since I would not consider myself an avid scientist, but your presuppositions of Creationist belief are in error. I believe the term you are looking for here is de-evlolution, as most Creationsists believe we have devolved from two sinless beings inhabiting all possible genetic traits.
No, actually tacitus is correct. We creationists do believe that evolution must have happened rapidly because we believe that two of each kind disembarked 4400 years ago. Unless we have the wrong definition of "kind" that means that a lot of changes have to have come about in a comparatively small amount of time. I'm certain that what we believe is absolutely a viable evolutionary possibility because evolutionary changes require little to no change in the genetic material.
I think I was speaking more towards the idea that evolution preaches survival of the fittest, in the sense that our cells are reproducing to promote a higher, more efficient kind in the future. What that future is, and how those cells are programmed, is not explained by evolutionists. Essentially, cells are somehow reprogramming themselves to survive. Why survival is even important is not explained either. Where is the will to live? If there is no raison d'etre, why live?
De-evolution is may be a bad term. When two beings come together to create one, that "one" being takes half its DNA from each of its parents. In a sense, it has lost half of each set of its parents' DNA. Some of that DNA is good, some of it is bad. Thus, you can understand why some people are say, allergic to cats and dogs, while some aren't. Some people kept the good gene, some did not. Of course, that particular "family tree" could pick up the good gene again if they reproduce with another who has the good gene.
The above can explain why some fish have no eyes, in a sort of quasi-survival-of-the-fittest way. No, they did not "evolve" because their eyes were useless. More than likely, some of these fish were born without eyes through some single trigger gene that did not carry over during reproduction. Most times when this would happen, the fish would die because it could not survive without sight. However, some of these fish were born in an environement where they could survive. Thus, we have a population of fish who have no eyes.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why shouldn't I believe in uniformitarian naturalism? - 1/15/2010 3:05:34 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 584
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: embracing_sonship
I think I was speaking more towards the idea that evolution preaches survival of the fittest, in the sense that our cells are reproducing to promote a higher, more efficient kind in the future. What that future is, and how those cells are programmed, is not explained by evolutionists. Essentially, cells are somehow reprogramming themselves to survive. Why survival is even important is not explained either. Where is the will to live? If there is no raison d'etre, why live?
For the sake of academic honesty, I have to disagree because I don't think that you've accurately explained the position of the opposition. You are correct in saying that the cell itself has no will, in fact, as Richard Dawkins once said, "What's so special about life anyway? It never violates the laws of physics." I disagree with Dawkins because I don't think that life is nothing but chemicals and entropy, or "blood and soil" as the Nazis once called it. Yet we see this kind of logical outworking as we study why a bacterium does what it does, and why our own cells do what they do. The bacterium doesn't reprogram itself because it gets scared or wants to rebel against its parents, chemicals simply do what chemicals do, and sometimes the DNA is changed in the process. This is not evolution but cell biology. No real controversy. Also, survival doesn't necessarily have to be important in this regard. The bacterium doesn't have to want to survive, it does so because of highly regulated chemistry.
quote:
De-evolution is may be a bad term. When two beings come together to create one, that "one" being takes half its DNA from each of its parents. In a sense, it has lost half of each set of its parents' DNA. Some of that DNA is good, some of it is bad. Thus, you can understand why some people are say, allergic to cats and dogs, while some aren't. Some people kept the good gene, some did not. Of course, that particular "family tree" could pick up the good gene again if they reproduce with another who has the good gene.
Just as a quick note, while an increased risk of allergies are inheritable, allergies are an acquired trait, not transmittable through normal, inheritable, genetic means.
quote:
The above can explain why some fish have no eyes, in a sort of quasi-survival-of-the-fittest way. No, they did not "evolve" because their eyes were useless. More than likely, some of these fish were born without eyes through some single trigger gene that did not carry over during reproduction. Most times when this would happen, the fish would die because it could not survive without sight. However, some of these fish were born in an environement where they could survive. Thus, we have a population of fish who have no eyes.
I agree with what you're saying here, in fact the great lack of observed beneficial mutations is a big unaddressed question for the universal common descent theory. But for the sake of honesty, I would put it this way: while there are plenty of sited examples of beneficial mutations, there are very few good examples of beneficial mutations, and there are no excellent examples of beneficial mutations. In particular there are no well documented examples of mutations that would be reflective of a mechanism which can lead to the development of new and novel structures and chemical pathways. A fish loosing its eye is a shameful and pathetic example for any evolutionist to use as an example of evolution because, as you have rightly put, how in the world does that demonstrate that a fish can produce an eye?!
What I'm asking for is a mechanism which can produce new and novel structures and chemical pathways. There are plenty of ways to break and clone pathways that already exist, but producing a new pathway seems to be a huge gap that evolutionists are comfortable living with.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why shouldn't I believe in uniformitarian naturalism? - 6/16/2010 2:17:40 AM
|
|
|
StephenJ
Posts: 471
Joined: 12/3/2007
Status: offline
|
I wanted to bring this thread back because the issue of uniform naturalism has popped up again in other threads.
_____________________________
Rock on!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why shouldn't I believe in uniformitarian naturalism? - 6/16/2010 5:43:39 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 584
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
Did I say all that? I don't remember saying all that! Has it been half a year already since this post?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why shouldn't I believe in uniformitarian naturalism? - 6/16/2010 6:25:42 PM
|
|
|
cih92
Posts: 239
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: StephenJ
On this board some people have questioned the idea of uniformitarian naturalism as a valid assumption.
Naturally for the creation of the universe to have happened as Y.E.C advocates believe it to have certain natural processes such as continental drift, genetic diversification within "kinds", and the decay of radioactive elements would have needed to occur at a greatly accelerated rate than they do today.
My question is, why should I believe this, when there doesn't seem to be much evidence that these changes happened quicker in the past then they do now? What evidence is there that animals speciated at greater speeds 6 thousand years ago than they do now? What evidence is there that plate tectonics worked diffrenttly back then?
It seems to me that simply following the evidence without a preconceived worldview leads to the conclusion that the world is very old, and that the natural processes that we see today happened at a similar rate in past generations.
There seems to be a belief among some YEC advocates that their is an irrational need
to not even consider the validity of Creationist ideas (like Noah's flood being the big event that shaped the modern world.) In truth, when one looks at the history of one particular science, geology, we see that the modern understanding of it emerged from the debate between uniformitarian naturalism and catastrophic views. A very popular "catastrophic" view was that Noah's deluge caused the enviroment we see in todays world. Basically just like Morris, Ham, and others have advocated in recent times.
Uniformitarian geology won that debate among most scientest back then by simply following the evidence without assuming that the Genesis account was a literal one. Infact some would argue that geology was dragged kicking and screaming by the emperical evidence from a deluge focused foundation into an old Earth foundation.
Anyway I just wanted to present the question.
Thanks.
Premise 1: If the earth is young, then certain natural processes such as continental drift, genetic diversification within "kinds", and the decay of radioactive elements occurred at a greatly accelerated rate than they do today.
Premise 2: The earth is young.
Conclusion: Therefore, certain natural processes such as continental drift, genetic diversification within "kinds", and the decay of radioactive elements occurred at a greatly accelerated rate than they do today.
There is no doubt that premise 1 is true and that the conclusion follows from the premises. The debatable premise is premise 2.
I'll offer two evidences that show that premise 2 is true.
1. Helium has been found in granite. If granite is millions of years old, then all of the helium should have leaked out by now.
2. Carbon-14 has been found in coal. If coal is millions of years old, then there should be no detectable amounts of carbon-14.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why shouldn't I believe in uniformitarian naturalism? - 6/16/2010 6:28:37 PM
|
|
|
cih92
Posts: 239
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tacitus
And thus, ironically, creationists believe that evolutionary change happened at a far, far, greater rate than the evolutionists themselves would say was possible.
Creationists believe that there is no biological change outside of the boundaries of the biblical kind. Creationists do not call biological change within the biblical kind, "evolution."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why shouldn't I believe in uniformitarian naturalism? - 6/17/2010 7:09:56 AM
|
|
|
tacitus
Posts: 2581
Joined: 5/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cih92
quote:
ORIGINAL: tacitus
And thus, ironically, creationists believe that evolutionary change happened at a far, far, greater rate than the evolutionists themselves would say was possible.
Creationists believe that there is no biological change outside of the boundaries of the biblical kind. Creationists do not call biological change within the biblical kind, "evolution."
Yes they do -- they just add the word "micro" to it, and given that there is barely any evidence of change in extant life-forms since historical record began between 2000 and 3000 years ago, the worldwide diaspora and massive change in lifeforms that must have happened if the fable of Noah's Ark really happened, must have been accomplished within a few hundred years at most. And given the massive diversity of species (even if you stick to land-based species) all over the world---including co-dependent species in remote areas that are practically incapable of traveling more than a few miles in any direction before moving out of the type of habitat that they need to sustain them---then you are talking about the type of changes that far outstrip anything claimed by evolutionists in terms of magnitude, speed, and diversity.
Now, if they are arguing that all this was accomplished by miraculous means then I will not argue the point except that I believe the historical, archaeological, and geological records show that a very different set of events occurred. But then we've gone far outside the realm of science at that point anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why shouldn't I believe in uniformitarian naturalism? - 6/17/2010 4:55:00 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 5760
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: online
|
quote:
Yes they do -- they just add the word "micro" to it, and given that there is barely any evidence of change in extant life-forms since historical record began between 2000 and 3000 years ago, What nonsense! Your misunderstanding and misrepresentation of creationism is so profound, it does not even merit response...
"Barely any evidence of change"?! The dog kind, the bear kind, the cat kind, the deer kind, the hawk kind, the stork kind, etc - none of these show any differences in phenotype? Why my six year old grandson can figure that out...
quote:
then you are talking about the type of changes that far outstrip anything claimed by evolutionists in terms of magnitude, speed, and diversity. Yes, isn't it amazing the potential of a front-loaded genome under such diverse evironmental pressures!
quote:
But then we've gone far outside the realm of science at that point anyway. Evolutionists are singularly adept at going FAR outside the realm of observational science with their pet religion! 
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why shouldn't I believe in uniformitarian naturalism? - 6/17/2010 5:54:27 PM
|
|
|
nuclear_sidewalk
Posts: 463
Joined: 6/8/2008
Status: offline
|
I used to argue about this stuff. The reason I stopped is because it's secondary to having an intense and growing relationship with Jesus Christ. While I would hold to a literal view of the biblical creation account, arguing it hardly sways someone to accept Christ, repent and become a fisher of men. I agree that the two major arguments here have significant worldview implications, ones I might say that seriously benefit or damage the understanding of scripture, but I just haven't seen the battle won on this end of it. People stuck on this tend to want everything naturally spelled out for them. No, we're not to have a "blind" faith, as some would call it, but I simply see more angst than repentance come from these discussions. It's not a perfect analogy, but I might compare it to arguing that everyone must agree on eschatological issues. Either way, those are past or future, and people need Jesus <right now>.
Consider this just a foot note, because it doesn't contribute to either argument.
< Message edited by nuclear_sidewalk -- 6/17/2010 6:01:08 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why shouldn't I believe in uniformitarian naturalism? - 6/24/2010 12:17:29 PM
|
|
|
TeaTimeTom
Posts: 68
Joined: 3/24/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
So no one was willing to commit that ALL THINGS will continue in the future as they do now, only SOME THINGS. Why is that?
Yet a uniformatarian view of the past requires that ALL THINGS continued throughout the past as they do today. There can be no exceptionalism co-mixed with it, as this view does not account for it.
Now, if Veritas were standing on the Earth 50 million years ago and SJ in the present, does it make logical sense for SJ to hold a uniform view of the past but not Veritas of the future? Either no exceptional events occur during those 50 million years, and both the forward and backward uniform views would be true, or something would happen to make BOTH false.
So I assert that if your whole worldview is based upon a uniformatarian view of the past, then you would be irrational to NOT also hold to a uniformatarian view of the future; that ALL THINGS have and will continue as they have from days of old (2Pe 3:4) as predicted by Peter's prophecy.
But if you can rest on a view of a uniform future, why worry about global warming, deforestation, species extinctions, nuclear wars, alien visits, or asteroid impacts? These things should be dismissed a simply minor deviations of an Earth that will continue with life pretty much as it always has.
All things in the cosmos always have and always will conform to natural law. That doesn't mean our sun will always rise. It will not even exist for most of the life of the cosmos.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why shouldn't I believe in uniformitarian naturalism? - 7/8/2010 3:09:52 PM
|
|
|
TheNameless
Posts: 142
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
I expect God's Will to be done tomorrow morning. Do you think it's safe to assume His Will to be done tomorrow?
I wouldn't presume to know what God had planned for tomorrow....or today for that matter. I know what I plan on doing tomorrow though and thats all I am really concerned about.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
