Re: evolution is an incomplete premise
- From: Patashu0@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 05:26:13 -0700
On Jun 30, 7:37 pm, Dale Kelly <THIS_IS_A_SPAMT...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
all of evolution depends on a non-intervention model, it implies a chain
of cause and effect which is left alone, unless you are ready to deal
with the issue of determinism, you cannot justify evolution as a premise
determinists believe that all events in reality are preordained by
previous causes
if you believe in finite time, or discontinuous time, you would have to
agree the first cause of any continuity would be indeterminate, quantum
uncertainty does not mean quantum indeterminancy, there is a BIG
difference between uncertain and random, I am willing to take this
argument on with ANYONE, quantum mechanics have an uncertainty, NOT an
indeterminancy, SO, you LOSE in these time scenarios
if you believe in an infinite continuum of time, you face the same
argument at the limit of negative infinity, so you LOSE here too
that leaves cyclical time, the last effect in a cycle has to equate to
the first cause of the next cycle, in physics you cannot represent a
cycle without reversing the polarity of the force you are talking about,
SO, you LOSE here too
--
Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
see website for real email address
You're looking too far into it.
The ToE is what it is regardless of what the first cause was and how
causality works in our universe/all universes.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: evolution is an incomplete premise
- From: Dale Kelly
- Re: evolution is an incomplete premise
- References:
- evolution is an incomplete premise
- From: Dale Kelly
- evolution is an incomplete premise
- Prev by Date: Re: Trees of Life
- Next by Date: Re: Pitman's Miller Time
- Previous by thread: Re: evolution is an incomplete premise
- Next by thread: Re: evolution is an incomplete premise
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|