Philosophy disproves Evolution

[firstpusk]

"I understand differentiation. I read about the alleles in Scientific America. I understand how species get developed."

 

Actually, I don't think you do understand the development of species. We have evidence of speciation that have been observed. That is why I gave you the link in the first post I wrote. In each case, the evolution of a new species was documented. That IS evolution in action.

 

"When people speak of evolution, they mean land animals crawled out of the sea. And sea animals mysteriously formed out the mud of the earth and the bottom of some lagoon?"

 

That is rather imprecise for the philosopher that you fancy yourself, now isn't it. I gave you a more precise definition. If you choose to muddy the waters with such as this, how am I to help you to understand.

 

The history of life goes back more than 3 billion years. Land animals - insects, amphibians, reptiles and mammals all come from earlier life in the sea. That is definitely part of the story. But the engine that drives that story is descent with modification through natural selection. The theory that Darwin proposed in 1859. As time has passed, our understanding of this critical process and the evidence that supports it has only grown.

 

"Nothing you said in your first post said where life came from.

 

Where did the first species come from? Where did the first cell come from?"

 

That is a good question. As I stated in the first post, the ultimate origin of life is not part of the theory of evolution, that is abiogenesis. By 3 billion years ago, the story of life had already started. The first traces of life we find in the fossil record are not the original species. We do, however, see certain things that help us to understand something about the origin. All life shares a common code, DNA, that defines all life that carries it. Species that share a common history in the fossil record also share a tremendous amount of common genes, i.e., us and chimps are more closely related than chimps and orangs. The history of life starts with single cell creatures that only grow more complicated after vast amounts of time - around two and a half billion years.

 

"I understand that one can make 50,000 different species of bacteria from a single bacteria form. But after 50,000 changes, the bacteria is still a SINGLE cell life form. It didn't change into a two cell living organism. So how do you suppose, one cell grew into a mamoth whale?"

 

So you agree that we have seen speciation. Good, you are making progress. You have admitted that evolution occurs. It is exactly this process of one species branching into others that portrays the history of life on earth that evolution explains.

 

One cell the zygote produces this huge creature. That is the only time that "one cell grows into a whale". Yes, it did come through countless millions of generations from those single celled precursors, as did we. For an understanding of the more recent ancestors of whales, check out this link.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

[NJCubScouter]

I said:

 

one of each species

 

Er... I meant one of each gender. Man, it's a good thing Noah didn't make that mistake...

[NJCubScouter]

Wheeler, first you say:

 

Aristotle disproves evolution in his book of Metaphysics.

 

Then in a later post you say:

 

Yet with using Aristotelian philosophy I can completely refute evolution theory.

 

Well, which is it? Did Aristotle actually say "There is no evolution and here's how I prove it" (or words to that effect), or is it you who are claiming that, using Aristotle's methods of reasoning, YOU can prove there is no evolution? Or both?

 

And, you evaded my comment about Aristotle the last time. Let's say he did "prove" there is no evolution. The fact that he thought the Sun goes around the Earth shows he wasn't always right. So why should we believe him any more about evolution than we do about the relationship between the Sun and the Earth?

 

Truth is timeless.

 

Maybe, but that assumes you have the truth in the first place, and not just opinions. And it sounds to me like most of what you've got is opinions, not necessarily the truth -- not just about evolution but about any of the other subjects you've been commenting on in this forum.

 

Whenever I hear or see someone claim that they have "all the answers," I get this funny feeling I should pack up my family and move them to a safe area...

 

 

 

 

 

[WHEELER]

I did not descend from an ape nor did I descend from a common ancestor that produced apes and man.

 

I am a creation of God. God made a form from the mud, and BREATHED into it spirit. All men are reproductions of this first man. We have differentiated into races but we are all created.

 

Human reasoning can not know this; only divine revelation, 'revealed' it to us.

 

Modern day understanding of evolution is that we descended from animals. And those animals from the sea. Wrong.

 

God made every primary form breathed life into it and from there every specific form differentiated.

 

Life begats life. Only something living can produce something living. Dead material can not produce living material.

 

All life is organization. Organization comes about thru intelligence. Every life form has been planned and executed. God is a potter.

 

This is the key though, if we are created by God then we belong to Him. If we evolutionized, then we are our own God. That is why the THEORY of evolution is the basis of every socialism. Socialism is the rebellion from God.

[WHEELER]

To NJCubScouter

 

Aristotle disproves evolution in the Metaphysics, one way; and I can using the rest of his philosophy prove other points as well.

 

Yes to both questions.

[firstpusk]

"I did not descend from an ape nor did I descend from a common ancestor that produced apes and man."

 

Denying reality does not change who your relatives are whether you like it or not. I am an ape you aree an ape and your parents are apes. A recent analysis of chimp and human DNA found it was nearly 99% the same. We are the most intellectually capable animals on earth our close relatives are next. We have a rich history of our anscestors. What were these creatures? How do you explain that they much like us yet the further we go back in time the more ape-like characteristics they have?

 

"I am a creation of God. God made a form from the mud, and BREATHED into it spirit. All men are reproductions of this first man. We have differentiated into races but we are all created."

 

So it appears that you accept the creation story in Genesis chapter 2. What scientific evidence do you have to support your view that this is historically and scientifically correct? May I also take it that you then believe that the account in Genesis chapter 1 is not accurate? What scientific evidence do you have to support this conclusion?

 

"Human reasoning can not know this; only divine revelation, 'revealed' it to us."

 

Actually, human reasoning does perfectly fine when applied to the problem of our origins. It seems that many fear truly examining the evidence. They like you seem to fear that existence of God is dependent on a slavish adherence to Biblical Literalism and Inerrency. God doesn't need to be protected from the truth.

 

"Modern day understanding of evolution is that we descended from animals. And those animals from the sea. Wrong."

 

How do you know that. The fossil record is quite clear. Life on earth is 3 billion years old, not 6-10 thousand. The development of life shows that forms evolved in the seas first and populated the land much later. Can you enlighten me about the scientific evidence for your position?

 

"God made every primary form breathed life into it and from there every specific form differentiated."

 

Did this happen all at the same time or did God stretch this out over, say, 3 billion years? It is clear that this did not happen at the same time if you look at the evidence. Just how old do you think the world is?

 

"Life begats life. Only something living can produce something living. Dead material can not produce living material."

 

And you have now been told three times, this is not evolution. This is:

 

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

 

 

"All life is organization. Organization comes about thru intelligence. Every life form has been planned and executed. God is a potter.

 

This is the key though, if we are created by God then we belong to Him. If we evolutionized, then we are our own God. That is why the THEORY of evolution is the basis of every socialism. Socialism is the rebellion from God."

 

Argument by analogy courtesy of the prophet Isaiah. Listen, accepting evolution has nothing to do with the denial of God. We do not know everything about how God created the world or the life on it. However, we do know that although the creation stories in Genesis are compelling and beautiful they should not be taken as historically or scientifically accurate. If they are God's explanation of exactly how things happened, why did God allow two to be put into Genesis with one in chapter 1 and another different one in chapter two? There are wonderful moral lessons in these stories just not any science. This is the level of understanding these folks had. We are blest by having this tremendous brain that allows us to understand and describe this beautiful creation.

 

BTW, your comments on evolution, creation and socialism shows you have the same depth of understanding of politics you have of evolution and philosophy.

 

[scoutingagain]

Wheeler said:

"I am a creation of God. God made a form from the mud, and BREATHED into it spirit. All men are reproductions of this first man. We have differentiated into races but we are all created."

 

Firstpusk responded"

 

"So it appears that you accept the creation story in Genesis chapter 2. What scientific evidence do you have to support your view that this is historically and scientifically correct? May I also take it that you then believe that the account in Genesis chapter 1 is not accurate? What scientific evidence do you have to support this conclusion?"

 

I have to disagree Firstpusk. After discussing creation, Wheeler than stated, "Human reasoning can not know this; only divine revelation, 'revealed' it to us. " Seems to me he acknowledges creation as described in the Bible is not science but faith and cannot be proven.

 

SA

 

 

[Sturgen]

Wheeler here is where you show your faults:

In your first thread you state Evolution says dirt, which is dead produced life. How can something dead produce something living?

However you later state God made a form from the mud mud is the same thing as wet dirt I do hope you realize.

You also state that All men are reproductions of this first man. We have differentiated into races but we are all created. If you are ignorant enough to believe this to be true so be it, however you have just presented some great evidence that evolution exists. If we are all reproductions of the first man, then we ought to all look identical to him in all ways. The differentiation in the races is due to natural selection, a key part of evolutionary theory.

You seem to have much time on your hands to read, may I suggest you try reading something written in the last couple of hundred years. If truth is timeless as you seem to believe then what is to say that a little book titles The Origin of Species is not the truth? Perhaps you are simply working your way through history reading every text ever written and have been stuck in the biblical times for far to long, believe it or not its been a couple thousand years since Plato died. Maybe just maybe he missed something seeing as he only traveled a small portion of the earth compared to any evolutionary theorist, and most likely less than most residents of the United States. It is impossible to make any observations about life if you are buried in books in dark hallways of ancient Greece.

 

[firstpusk]

"I have to disagree Firstpusk. After discussing creation, Wheeler than stated, "Human reasoning can not know this; only divine revelation, 'revealed' it to us. " Seems to me he acknowledges creation as described in the Bible is not science but faith and cannot be proven.

 

SA"

 

Hey, its a free country, so disagree if you want to. Go back to his initial post. He made claims that he could refute evolution and establish creationism as more scientific using philosophy with one hand tied behind his back. He started this, not me.

 

He has already admitted that species evolved in an earlier post. In this one, he seems to admit that it is some form of divine knowledge that gives him insight into creationism. It seems that he has no scientific basis for his belief in creationism. That is fine with me. His personal beliefs are of no concern to me. If he wants to say it is science, that is another matter.

[WHEELER]

Philosophy proves the creation story true?

 

No man has seen quarks but they are there. No man can see atoms but they are there and the very name atom comes from the Greek thinkers, WHO THRU LOGIC, saw that things are made up of smaller units.

 

Look how philosophy of the Greeks came up with atoms. Not exact but the concept of them.

 

If the mind is intelligent, isn't it intelligent enough to communicate with us?

 

To Firstpusk, Truth does not contradict truth. Scriptural truth is in harmony with physical truth. Both were created thru the Logos of God.

 

God is wiser than me, I will believe God.

[firstpusk]

"Philosophy proves the creation story true?"

That was the question I asked myself when you wrote, "Philosophy debunks evolution and Philosophy supports Creationism." I'm still wondering where is the beef.

"No man has seen quarks but they are there. No man can see atoms but they are there and the very name atom comes from the Greek thinkers, WHO THRU LOGIC, saw that things are made up of smaller units."

Yep, and these same ancients came up with evolution "THRU(sic) LOGIC". "Look how philosophy of the Greeks came up with atoms. Not exact but the concept of them." But philosophy can only take you so far with logic. Both atomic and evolutionary theory could not be fleshed out with the methods the Greeks were using. They needed the scientific method to develop what modern scientists have achieved. There method did not even produce a meaningful hypothesis because they could not effectively test their ideas.

"If the mind is intelligent, isn't it intelligent enough to communicate with us?"

Not sure what you are getting at here.

"To Firstpusk, Truth does not contradict truth. Scriptural truth is in harmony with physical truth. Both were created thru the Logos of God."

Nice little sound bite, truth does not contradict truth. What is the translation, WHEELER is right and firstpusk is wrong - PERIOD, NO BACKS! The problem you have is that you have painted yourself into a corner by denying that any idea or fact that denies a literal reading of Genesis is somehow wrong. There is powerful truth in the creation story that cuts to the heart of what it is to be human. The power of these passages is not that there is historical or scientific accuracy there.

"God is wiser than me, I will believe God."

Faith in God does not require the denial of evolution. If your literal reading is true, why would God salt the earth with fossil and geological evidence of an ancient earth and billions of years of the history of evolution? God is indeed wise, but we are created in his image with a mind and spirit that seek truth and knowledge. We can not turn back and go back to a time before we sought understanding. The mind that God has given us is like the talents granted the sevant - we must use it to seek truth and deepen our understanding. In that way, Darwin was a good and faithful servant.

[WHEELER]

(This message has been edited by WHEELER)

[WHEELER]

Creation is an historical event. It did happen. Creation does not dismiss dinosaurs and the fossil record. All life came from God though. We have the same DNA as animals because God created them all.

 

Philosophy, which is a science, proves the story of Creation. You disregard the inerrancy of the Scriptures, you disregard the God who made the scriptures.

 

Life begats life. All living things came from a direct creation of God. Speciation did not make apes into humans Sorry.

 

We are made up of 75 % water, and the rest is carbon, nitrogen and other elements. Is water alive? Is carbon or nitrogen alive?

 

If we are just dead material, where is the seat of life then?

 

The latin word for soul is "anima". It is where we get the word "animal". It is also the verb "to animate". That is what a soul does. It is "self-movement". We are nothing but dead material that is "animated".

 

No biology book has a definition of life. They can't explain it. Life is metaphysical object; it is spiritual. Science can not answer what life is they can only label the seven characteristics of life.

 

They are growth,rReproduction, the taking in of nutrients and the expelling of wastes, movement, etc.

 

The plant soul has the powers of growth, reproduction, and the taking of nutrients and the expelling of wastes.

 

The animal soul has all the powers of the plant soul plus one more, movement.

 

The human soul has all the powers of the animal soul plus one more, and that is reasoning.

 

God created the earth and the heavens and then thru the epochs on earth created the forms and implanted soul. Souls are what life is. The soul is the seat of life. God is life. Not only is God the prime mover in that he created matter and then sent it into change, he is the prime mover that sent life into the world. God is the prime mover in the physical as well as the metaphysical (spiritual).

 

Animal souls did not produce a human soul. For you to be a Catholic and think so, you need to re read St. Thomas Aquanis. Potentiality, my dear man, Potentiality. Animals souls do not have the "potentiality" or otherwise, reasoning would be inherent in animals right now. After, 50,000 years of evolution, we still can't talk philisophy with dogs.

[OldGreyEagle]

I haven't had an opportunity to read St Thomas Aquanis, but I have delved into St. Thomas Aquinas a bit, nothing much to speak of other than he was a victim of circumstance at the hands of the University of Paris.

 

For a self descibed student of philosophy I would think you would be more careful with at least the spelling of the names of the people you quote. I mean, first you read a biography of B-P and miss the fact he was not born a Lord and then you mis spell St Thomas Aquinas's name. Just how accurate and complete a scholar are you ? Then again, you may suscribe to the ee cummings school of grammar in which case you are doing fine composition wise.(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[NJCubScouter]

First of all, Wheeler, I went back to your first post in this thread, where you say that "Philosophy" is a science, and you also say that "Philosophy proves all living things have souls." How does "Philosophy" prove that, or anything like that? How does any science prove anything about souls? The "soul" is a religious concept, or if you prefer, a spiritual concept. You may have a "philosophy" (small "p", meaning a particular set of ideas and beliefs) that says there is a "soul," but to the extent that "Philosophy" (big P) can be considered a "science," it would have to be neutral on the subject of souls.

 

Which sort of brings me to something in your latest post:

 

Philosophy, which is a science, proves the story of Creation. You disregard the inerrancy of the Scriptures, you disregard the God who made the scriptures.

 

When you say "the story of Creation," I assume from your other writings that you mean the creation-story at the beginning of Genesis. (Though as firstpuck correctly points out, there are 2, and they are not completely consistent.) If that is the case, and the "science of Philosophy" "proves" the Genesis story of Creation, then I suppose Aristotle (who as I understand it, did not know of the Book of Genesis although it did exist in Hebrew during his time) came up with this story all on his own, right? Why would he need the Bible at all, if what it says is "proven" by "Philosophy"?

 

My answer, of course, is: Just as Philosophy can't prove or disprove the existence of a soul, Philosophy (by itself) cannot prove or disprove how mankind was created. However, on this subject, unlike the subject of souls, Philosophy has some help, and that help comes from science. Not what you call "science," but real science. Science gives us some facts about the development of species, and theories to fill in the rest. Philosophy can be used by some to add to what science has told us, for example Philosophy (or religion) can suggest (but again, not prove) that evolution was part of God's design. But Philosophy can't overrule science. Science deals with facts. Philosophy deals with ideas and opinions, and in some cases those ideas and opinions can affect how we think about the facts provided by science... but it can't change the facts.

 

As to your second sentence, about the inerrancy of Scripture, I suppose you do have a point that if someone believes God literally wrote the Bible, they must also believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. However, if you believe that the relationship between God and the Bible is something different, either that God inspired the Bible, or that the Bible is just one group of ancient peoples' attempt to explain God, then it's a different story. (Since this is after all a Scouting forum (which reminds me of the moment in the song Alice's Restaurant in which Alice reappears in the story after a lengthy absence and Arlo Guthrie then says, "You remember Alice?"), I just want to remind you that Scouting does not require a belief that God wrote or inspired any particular book, only a belief that some higher power exists.) But for that reason, what you say about the inerrancy of the Bible isn't going to prove anything to anybody. There are other people in this forum who also believe the Bible is inerrant, they were here before you got here and they will be here (or in one notable case, he will return, at least I think he will) long after you figure out that this forum is not the place for in-depth discussions of philosophy, and go elsewhere. As for the rest of us, including me, hearing someone say the Bible is inerrant is sort of like the points on "Whose Line is it Anyway." (Sorry. At the beginning of every show, Drew Carey says "The points don't matter." And sometimes follows that with some explanation like "Yup, the points don't matter, they're like the warning on a pack of cigarettes. Or, they're like the surveillance camera at the 99 cent store.)

 

Point is, if you believe something you believe it, and if you don't, you don't. If there's proof of it, it's science. But you can't prove God wrote a book. You can believe it, and many people do, and I used to, but you can't prove it.