I'm not sure whether Duff is assessing Carl Werner (Werner, not Warner) correctly or not. He seems to have made some mistakes. I'm concerned with a remark according to which Werner uses the word "Naturalism" for "Evolution" ...
Evolution 101: Dr. Carl Warner [sic] Fails to Understand Basic Evolutionary Theory
Dr. Joel Duff | 25 Febr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56rJEW8iCVg
[... 2024 that was the year that was 1:50 the year it all came undone the entire edifice of Naturalism (which is his 1:55 his usage of for the word Evolution) came crumbling down and crashed ...]
2:01 Naturalism is not his usage for the word evolution.
But naturalism philosophically presupposes either an eternal steady state universe, or evolution, and as the eternal steady state universe is already out, it only needs taking down evolution to disprove naturalism by now.
- Juan Ausensi
- @juanausensi499
- If you disprove 'things change' and also 'things don't change', you disproved not just naturalism but reality itself
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- @juanausensi499 I'm sorry, but "evolution" is not "things change" + "things don't change", evolution is saying we got capacities that our remote ancestors absolutely hadn't. It's things like saying, we can speak, but at some point far enough back in time, all of our ancestors communicated basically as chimps or gorillas do today. Especially if you go to the ancestor that's also supposed to be ancestral to chimps or even to gorillas.
Disproving that is not disproving reality itself.
@ In case you missed it, "eternal steady state universe" is not the only option of things not changing, an unchanging God is an alternative.
And evolution is not the only option for things changing, things apart from God changing from Nothing to Created because He Created them is an alternative.
And eternity of God + the universe we live in was created = God is Supernatural, hence an alternative to Naturalism is Supranaturalism.
- Juan Ausensi
- @hglundahl God, unchanging or not, is not an alternative for a universe, unchanging or not.
The universe either changes or doesn't. There is no third option, with or without a God.
Evolution is not a explanation for change, but another word for it.
@hglundahl As i said, evolution just means change. Even if you lose something your ancestors had, it is still change and thus evolution.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @ Evolution is not another word for change.
As eternal existence is a given (being cannot come from non-being), God as eternal is an alternative to the Universe being eternal.
- Juan Ausensi
- @hglundahl Yes, it is, and you can check it for yourself. If you want to use a word to specify a positive change, you can use "improvement", 'progress' or "development" instead, but beware of context, because "development" can be used as neutral too.
God is an alternative to no God. Of course, if God exists, the universe he created could be eternal or not eternal. That's why the hypothesis of God doesn't do much for us to know in what category the universe is.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @ We know on other grounds that the universe is not eternal.
For instance H + H => D
D + D = He.
Irreversibly.
If the universe were eternal, why do the stars still have Hydrogen to "burn"?
This means, a) something else than the universe has to be eternal, and b) the living things came by some kind of change, whether it's the change we call Creation or the change we call Evolution.
So, we just need to exclude Evolution to prove the Supernatural, like God exists, He created the universe, and He created living things pretty like those we see today. I'm not saying the change from wolf to chihuahua is impossible, but the change from amoeba to man is.
[this response is for some reason not visible on the thread]
- Grey the Malkin
- @GreyTheMalkin
- @hglundahl you forgot "cyclic" as a possible naturalistic 'presupposition'
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @GreyTheMalkin Cyclic universe actually DOES mean that an eternal multiverse is divided into non-eternal universes.
This places each non-eternal universe into a position of needing either a Creator or a functioning Evolutionary process.
No comments:
Post a Comment