jeudi 26 avril 2012

To an Atheist Teenager called Autumn Lauber

On your FB page there are roses on the picture on the wall. My guess is some person with good taste put them there because they are beautiful. Like - you?

In the "general picture" of the universe too there are roses. Someone maybe put them there, for similar reasons, and maybe did so with you too.

Now, when it comes to hypotheses, they do not prove themselves even in sciences. Experiments are arranged because this or that person already believes a thing and wants to prove it. Digging for fossilised skeletons has been very much more done since Darwinism came to be an issue. So having a thesis and looking for confirmation (if at least in principle ready to accept the inverse too) is not a fault.

Now, when it comes to the creationist thesis, someone putting roses and you in the general picture for similar reasons you put roses on your wall photo, I have so far found nothing to invalidate it. And I did start out with an opposite one, that all of us came from one-celled organisms that evolved without any kind of divine internvention. I find that thesis very much harder to believe than there being elves behind the garden - or angels for that matter. Feel welcome to ask for details./HGL

Debating again with Patristics Debater

Hans-Georg Lundahl > J. U. :
April 18 at 1:10pm

Evolution: Fact or Belief

J. U. :
after the first two minutes, i think i can see where this is going. life does not come from non-life. but God is alive, and life comes from Him.

if we really knew of what life consisted, this would be clear.
April 19 at 12:53am

Hans-Georg Lundahl:
Well, that resumes the first five or ten minutes - then there are a lot of other subjects (including two dating related)
April 19 at 12:02pm

J. U. :
finished. interesting.
  • 1) this brings doubt upon the conclusions of dating methods.
  • 2) Darwin had none of these dating methods.
  • 3) we still have no theory better than evolution.

April 20 at 12:05am

Hans-Georg Lundahl:
OK, special creation of each species is not better than evolution? How?
April 20 at 11:01am

J. U. :
Are there observed natural processes which cause special creation of species?
Yesterday at 7:59am

J. A. · Friends with J. U. :
When you refer to dating methods not available to Darwin, would that include "speed dating?"
Yesterday at 8:02am

J. U. :
Much of evolution is speed dating.
Yesterday at 9:34am · Likes: 1.

Hans-Georg Lundahl:
"Are there observed natural processes which cause special creation of species?" - No. Obviously not. Why would a Christian require such? Or are you not into "God almighty, creator of heaven and of earth of all things visible and invisible" at all? I thought you were a Catholic. God is not an observed natural process.
20 hours ago

J. U. :
Are you not into "Primum Movens"? We see God's action through nature.
14 hours ago

Hans-Georg Lundahl:
We do. That does not mean that there are infinite in-betweens between our seing and his doing: there are definite points at which he moves immediately the result without any intervening second cause. In time one of them is creation. If Geocentrism is true there is a similar "point" about primum mobile being moved directly by God, even if lower things closer to earth are moved through it. And there are miracles.

And between God and us, the number of secondary causes is always finite (quia infinita pertransire impossibile). You also asked if there were a natural process causing special creation of each species to take place. No, but there is one keeping each kind within its place, it was discovered by Mendel and by Microscopes - it is called chromosome numbers. They do not vary at random as do the genes. Nor are they totally fixed - but the laws of their variations do rule out placental mammals having a common ancestor.

Considering where you studied, you ought to have a better grasp on St Thomas Aquinas than you do! Really!

@J. A. - speed dating is as for radioactive dependent on guesses concerning how much (how much C14 to start, how much lead was there to start, how much Uranium salt has been washed out) and as for sediment dating it is very dependent on how fast, since that varies considerably (which is not the only factor making for several billions of years of error, but one important of them). The video - have you seen it - gives a take on sediments I did not already view, watch it!
2 seconds ago