Proof that evolution is the only answer

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: namelesss
And we don't need a 'well rounded understanding', we need a theory that accounts for all Perspectives!

I tend to think from a programming perspective. Godel's theorem and Turing's incompleteness theorem indicate to me that no one theory can account for all perspectives; or at least, to do so would require absolutely infinite knowledge.

A theory can be true for all Perspectives, without being aware of most.
For instance, "The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman... or any feature herein...) can be completely defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd
ALL INCLUSIVE!!!
Although true, there can be no Perspectives offered to refute.
Or; "Any statement/Perspective can be argued!"
One need not know them, to even offer anything as an argument validates the premise.

Besides, all is Known.
Knowledge = experience/perception

As a mortal I count such knowledge beyond myself. Though I still feel a temptation to dig into what knowledge I can, just as I get the temptation to dig into a bowl of ice-cream. Furthermore, I think what I learn may prove useful if I can pick up on any principles I can apply.

The new, critically updated, all inclusive, Universal definition of 'Knowledge';

"'Knowledge' is 'that which is perceived', Here! Now!!"

All inclusive!

That which is perceived by the unique individual Perspective is 'knowledge'.
All we can 'know' is what we perceive, Now! and Now! and Now!!!

'Ignorance' is that which is NOT perceived, at any particular moment, by any particular unique Perspective! Here! Now!

Every moment we are unique Perspective/Knowledge.
There is only One Universal Consciousness peeking from all Perspectives!
"Consciousness is the ground of all being!" - Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics
One Consciousness.
And We are a necessary feature/Perspective of the One Reality.

I take it your approach to evolution vs creation would be different from mine. Do you have a theory? How do you go about developing it? Do others share your theory? Is your approach Zen based?

The reason that, ultimately, evolution will fail as a 'Universal theory' is the same reason that 'creation' fails.
Both deal with 'beginnings' and temporal 'progression'.
That we are straddling some 'wave' of time, the Now being the crest beneath our feet, and the 'past' and 'future' awaiting our arrival. But it would all be Now!
Every moment of Universal existence is Now!
Already exists!
Like a movie, motion, and the 'time' that defines 'motion' is an illusion!
Just like the 'moving' characters in the flick.

With no 'time', with no 'motion' (other than as an illusion), where every moment of Universal existence exists Here! Now!
How can 'evolution' even exist, other than as a theory explaining an illusion.
And 'creation' is even more impossible, for many reasons, but if there can be no 'motion'/'time', then no One can 'do' anything, like build a Universe from nothing. It violates the most basic thought processes.

"The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are descriptions of patterns that exist, all at once... " - Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman
All 'eternity' at once; Here! Now!!

There is only one moment (Planck moment = 10^-43/sec; "almost" one billion trillion trillion trillionths of a second!!!) of the entirety of existence/Reality/the Universe!
All existence, ever, is one, literally, 'timeless' moment!
Now!

"Reality is a synchrony of moments!" - Book of Fudd

All the still 'cells' from the movie are on the table in a heap! All moments.
All frames being perceived at the same 'timeless' moment, from all unique Perspectives!
A Planck moment has insufficient 'duration' to contain 'time'.
A moment is literally 'timeless'.
People who like the time arrows imagine a string of moments, extending from then to some future then.
But if a moment = 0 time, no matter how many you string together, the sum total would remain '0', zero!
Add all the moments of Universal existence = 0!

So how does 'evolution' fit in with what is essentially a Holistic Reality?

Yes, evolution is a great theory that describes a fairly common illusion, but Reality is Holistic, all Here! Now!
All is Known, Here! Now!
The only 'trick' is access. *__-

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Akragon

I am not trying to help Raggedyman

I have different targets in mind.

He's a troll - really not worth the effort. Not that bright either.

On another topic, perhaps you could start a thread about your spiritual beliefs. I've been to Stonehenge a number of times - was there just a few months ago - I like their new renovation - originally you could walk right up to the monuments - but I understand that they have to protect them now from the hoards of tourists. Also interesting, they've found more sites that are much older than the first site.

Would be interesting topic to discuss (even though has nothing to do with Creationism - maybe the mods would want it on another board).

Scientologist : Show me the evidence against my belief
Satanist: Show me the evidence against my belief
Mormon: Show me the evidence against my belief
Jehovahs witness: Show me the evidence against my belief
Christian: Show me the evidence against my belief
Flying spaghetti monster: Show me the evidence against my belief
Agnostic: Love to see some evidence for what you believe
Scientist: Here is the evidence for what I believe

I am persuaded by the preponderance of evidence that evolution is the most probable current theory explaining biological life.

I also believe in God and am a Christian.

The two are not mutually exclusive for me, and I won't/don't tell anyone else what they should believe. My beliefs are my own. Not everyone who belongs to a religion is telling scientists they're wrong. And most scientists won't tell the theologically inclined that they're wrong, so long as they aren't making assertions that contradict the available evidence.

Works for me. YMMV, to each their own.

Peace.

originally posted by: AceWombat04
I am persuaded by the preponderance of evidence that evolution is the most probable current theory explaining biological life.

I also believe in God and am a Christian.

Is this not a contradiction?

Wouldnt knowing its a contradiction and yet still believing be tantamount to being intellectually dishonest to yourself and the ones you speak/preach to?

Coomba98

a reply to: coomba98

I don't consider it a contradiction. If I believed the two were logically mutually exclusive, then it would be. As I said, I don't.

Peace.

a reply to: Phantom423

Perhaps I will though I did that several years ago ( look at my post history). Just for the record Stone Henge has nothing to do with pagan druidry

a reply to: Noinden

Of course you have a camp, your camp is the scientific paradigm with little or no thought and analysis of non-contrived data of your own...

Jaden

a reply to: TerryDon79

No he asked you to show empirical evidence for evolution. Not emperical(sic) evidence that shows adaptation or mutation.

There can be no empirical evidence for evolution because it's very premise precludes it. The very premise behind evolution(not adaptation) precludes it EVER being anything other than a belief system.

It's very similar to Christianity or any other religion. It cannot exist without faith.

He isn't really asking you to show empirical evidence for evolution as he knows that there can't be any. He's trying to get you to think about it (novel concept) and come to the correct conclusion for yourself. That conclusion being that there CAN'T be any empirical evidence for evolution and most facets of evolution have several degrees of separation from any empirically drawn conclusions from the evidence that is available. In addition, most of the closely inferred evidence is circular in reasoning and requires one piece of inferred evidence to rely on another piece of interrelated inferred evidence.

Jaden

a reply to: TerryDon79

LOL, I already pointed out how it's not evolution. It is adaptation. Evolution CANNOT have empirical evidence to support it because it is NOT by it's VERY nature observable or testable empirically. It is always only supported by inferred evidence that shows something completely different. In this case, adaptation.

Jaden

a reply to: Masterjaden

And adaptation is a part of evolution.

Try to keep up.

a reply to: Masterjaden

Yet scientists have empirical evidence of evolution through experimentation. You know? Experimentation. The other part of the definition of emperical evidence.

a reply to: sputniksteve

Don't expect any proof to be forthcoming. By the very nature of the construct of evolutionary theory, it CANNOT be proven. It is a religion. It requires faith.

You have to believe that small changes over time can lead to drastic changes in order for evolutionary theory to hold any water and that requires faith, unless and until we can extend the human lifespan a few hundred thousand or million years.

Jaden

a reply to: Masterjaden

I guess it's just a belief then. Oh well.

Best tell your doctors not to perform any medical procedures on you or any loved ones.

a reply to: TerryDon79

LOL adaptation is a part of evolutionary theory, yes. Guess what??? I can empirically show that people believe to have exited their bodies upon death and witnessed events around them. That's a part of NDE and life after death theory, does that mean that we've proven NDE's are real and life after death exists?

Jaden

a reply to: Masterjaden

Actually, you can't show emperical evidence of people exiting their bodies.

You fail, again.

How about this. Instead of just saying it's wrong, prove it's wrong. You lot bitch and whine about it being wrong, but never offer anything to prove it. Here's your chance.

a reply to: TerryDon79

No they don't. You showcase your ignorance in the evaluation of evidence every time you say this. As has been asked of you, please show this experimentation. I promise you, it doesn't show what you purport it to show.

That you don't understand that empirical evidence of small changes does not equate to empirical evidence of drastic changes over time, also showcases your ignorance in the evaluation of evidence.

This has sadly become too common place in science and is and has been a problem since the beginning of time.

Whether it's the paradigms that the earth, the sun, you or me is the center of the universe, the paradigms and living solely within their spoonfed grasp has been a human condition since we were swinging from the trees (as tarzan, not as an ape ancestor).

Jaden

a reply to: Masterjaden

Here we go again with the denial with no evidence.

How about you show emperical evidence that evolution is wrong.

a reply to: TerryDon79

You need to work on your reading comprehension. I didn't say I could show empirical evidence of people exiting their bodies. I said I can show empirical evidence of them BELIEVING they exited their bodies.

I used that reference specifically because I knew you would misinterpret it, which is what you are also doing with your paradigmic fantasies regarding empirical evidence of evolutionary theory.

The point was that having repeatable experimentation does not show anything more than what it shows.

In the case of NDEs, It merely shows that people believe to have exited their bodies.

In the case of MMSA and MRSA, it merely shows environmental adaptation.

Taking either one further than that requires inference and therefore no longer qualifies as empirical, or purely scientifc. It reaches into the realm of pseudoscience and becomes belief, evidentially inferred belief, but belief none the less.

Jaden

a reply to: Masterjaden

And environmental adaptation is a part of evolution.

Try looking up what evolution is before you carry on with your blinded argument.