Evolution is Unscientific

What's cosmic time?
Do you consider time [ and space ] as an absolute phenomenon?
If so, why?

What I mean is, can we really define them in an absolute sense? How do you know what happened in the past, for example, other than making assumptions about the nature of time?

This universe can disappear in the blink of an eye. What does it mean when we say that light cannot travel greater
than a certain speed? There is more than one way of interpreting that.
We can take "time" as an absolute, or we can take "space/distance" as an absolute .. but not both, according to the theory of relativity.
We can also envisage a scenario in which our measured speed of light is not really "fixed" at all.
It is all relative
Relative to what we assume and define in the first place.

 

Which is why I suggested to stay away from cosmic time with all the relativity and speed-of-light etc, just for now, and focus on earthbound geological time?

So, to repeat the query:

 

I don't see the difference between what happens on earth and the rest of the universe..
For me, it is a question of what "billions of years" means.
Does it really matter what time we measure for events that happened in the past?

How should it affect my faith? Do scientific findings contradict what scripture teaches us?
Not for me. It doesn't matter what scientists tell me happened. Most of what they say is more than likely to be
correct. So what?

Nothing they say can contradict the existence of the prophets of old, and that Almighty God created the universe.
It is only when people claim scientific facts in scripture are incorrect that there is a problem.
Who started the problem? I am aware of who that would be.

Your question: at what "earth times" did mankind evolve?
I don't know and don't care. I'll leave that to the paleontologists, who find it meaningful to learn how the Bible is apparently wrong

They want us to believe that mankind is an accident. Oh, that's alright then. We can make up our own morality as
we can throw our Bibles away.

 

This

 

But beyond this creation, visible and invisible, there is an Invisible, higher, Eternal; and when all things pass away, this remains forever and ever.
Bhagavad Gita 8:20

 

My initial thought exactly.

 

Interesting. To take this comment at face value, having not read Morton's work, you are saying you do not believe in evolution.



The particular essay I pointed to, that you object to, deals specifically with the evolution in humans of sweat glands (which other simians do not have) and the unique birth requirements humans evolved due to the enlarged skull, reducing the gestation period (which among comparable animals for size / weight / etc should be somewhere around 14 months, according to Morton), and the birth position of an infant that seems to have necessitated the ancient practice of midwifery.

But then I've been quick to dismiss things I couldn't be bothered with as well...

 

Something I have yet to see him distinguish (which seems odd to me given he does delve into the language on particular issues), is the difference between 6th day creation of "Adam," vs the 8th day creation of "ha-Adam." The article makes a world of difference, and as I've noted before "day" in the creation story in Genesis is properly translated "time." How long that time was is left open, there could possibly have been thousands, even millions of years between each "day."

As I understand Morton, I can't help but feel he is describing the 6th day creation. That is where I differ with him. I stand by my position that the Eden story specifically is a mythic representation of the dawn of the Agricultural Revolution, and the "opening of the mind" brought on by widespread consumption of grain.

I do find his thought that the Eden story took place within the Mediterranean Basin, which he presents acknowledged geology that at one time the Med was a desert basin below sea level (similar to the Dead Sea, the Turfan Basin or Death Valley / Salton Sea, except on a much larger scale), and that the flood of Noah was when the pillars of Hercules (Gilbralter on one side) gave way and allowed the Atlantic Ocean to flood into the Med Basin. Geologically it makes sense.

 

Context is so crucial.

He actually opens this specific essay with the point that without reading the previous (4?) essays to lay the foundation, it is far too easy to misinterpret. Such is the case here I see.

In Morton's defense, he is on about Young Earth Creationists (YECs), which many years ago he counted himself among their number. He went to work in the field of geology, exploring for oil, and found discrepancies that didn't line up with what he understood the Bible to say. It nearly cost him his faith, he nearly became an academic atheist. Something drew him back in, and he spent the rest of his (much too short) life reconciling the Bible with scientific fact to what extent he could. Much in science is conjecture, so it is fair to say some of his conclusions are conjecture as well, but he has done far more to reconcile the Bible across multiple scientific disciplines than any other researcher I am aware of. Naturally, as a geologist, the bulk of his "evidence" is based in hard, known, documented, peer reviewed, accepted geology, the kind of stuff the YECs tend to cherry pick or ignore. He also spent a great deal of time and energy on anthropology...I quoted "the Curse of the Big Head" here at this site many years ago, and I had gone looking for the info again because I can't find the old thread. I am pleased to see it included in this string of essays.

I think of all folks here, you most of all Thomas, would appreciate this man's scholarship. You may not agree with everything, but I guarantee he will make you think.

 

Relatively speaking, you are correct.

But the earth's rotation is slowing.

If a second is 1/60th of a minute, a minute is 1/60th of an hour, and an hour is 1/24th of a day, and that day used to be considerably shorter...

However, I've not heard if a year is any longer or shorter than it was a thousand, a million, ten million years ago. A trip around the sun is a year, and that trip is independent of how many hours/minutes/seconds as we currently measure time.

 

That is not real. That is why I abandoned it.

 

Science adds seconds as and when required.

December 31, 2016
The last leap second was December 31, 2016. Since leap seconds are always added on the last day of June or December, the next possible date for a leap second is June 30, 2021. Leap seconds have been added 27 times since 1972.
Google Search

I do not know if the underlined was done, probably missed out due to Covid-19.
In the same way Vedic people changed the beginning of their year three times in the course of 6,000 years by a month (in total three months), which was the slippage of seasons due to precession of equinox. That is why Christmas or 'natalis dies solis invicti' is in December and not in April along with vernal equinox and the Indo-European New Year (Navroz).

 

I go with science and I believe in abiogenesis and evolution. What I meant was that the article was too long for me to spend time on it, it was poorly presented on internet, in a very monotonous format with no paragraph headings. And the font size was small. He had all the space on the page but restricted the article to one column. IMV, design fault. I already know these things and do not believe that the author would have something new to offer to me. That is why I did not read it.

 

As you say.

On your recommendation, I'll give him a deeper look ...

 

Only if we hold a perhaps too simple or too literal view of what scripture teaches us.

I'd say religionists are as much at fault as science, here..

When Galileo proposed his theories, his major opponents were other scientists wedded to an Aristotelian idea of the universe. They then dragged religion into the debate, and the whole issue was made worse when a Catholic monk chose to read scripture in an overly-literal way (Joshua 10:12).

A quick dive into a search engine throws up a paper in which rather than 'standing still', the Hebrew used can also be read 'be still', 'be silent' and further etymology shows it can mean 'to stop shining'. Add to that language studies that show the same root is used in Babylonian texts to indicate an eclipse, and we have a more informed, more nuanced reading of a text that we understand literally, in another language, that interposes all manner of scope for error.

By the same token, a similar search will throw up the Qur'an apparently 'proving' the speed of light ...

Or is it our cherished – but fallible – understanding?

Might I point out that apart from the homage due to God, the morality contained in Scripture was already there in societies as a means of cohabiting. They didn't need God to tell them.

 

I often hear the phrase "since records began" ..
It usually refers to ~ 50 -100 years ago, when it comes to the weather and other scientific phenomenon.
It certainly doesn't include billions of years ago

I've already said that the universe can disappear in the blink of eye. That's how real it is
..and yet many people would have us believe that "time" is definitive .. unchanging.
The universe is expanding. As we have no record of "the beginning", it is only an assumption that
the scientific model that we envisage is 100% accurate from big-bang until the present day.

When we say "billions of years", we have no idea how fast or slow time passes.
We don't even know how fast time passes when we die, and we all wait for "judgement day"

Time is a perception, while measured time is something imaginative.
..and G-d knows best.

 

I'm not sure what you are referring to here..
Are you saying that mankind is capable of creating a successful society without God's spiritual guidance?
..because I would not agree with that. We are too easily ruled by our desire for wealth and worldly pleasure.
..too easily driven to violence in order to be the uppermost.

Any morality that was "already there" in a society has roots.
1000's of prophets were sent to the world at various times and places.
Man-made philosophy can not match Divine guidance.

That is why prophets were continually sent to Bani Israel, for example, when they were going off-track.
To remind .. to renew .. to correct.

These days, many people think that we can change morality in society as we see fit.
eg. investment banking/insurance, the importance of marriage, the death penalty, no caning of youth etc.

We wander from true guidance at our peril.

 

He means Satan started the problem

 

Well as a Christian, I'd say that morality was written in the heart ... as per Romans 2:15 ... but this is the secular board, and one has to acknowledge that non-theist traditions are equally capable of admirable moral values.

The Golden Rule is found in almost every if not every culture, but is in itself not God-dependent, nor is a belief necessary for its endorsement? People don't need God to appreciate the value of it.

LOL, I'm not even sure man is capable with God's guidance, but yes, man is capable of it ... whether he choses to do so, with or without divine guidance, is another matter.

OK. To me, empathy is not uncommon, nor is it learned, nor is it dependent on scripture.

In fact, too easily and too often, we use scripture to validate a lack of empathy, to validate war, cruelty, etc.

Personally, I disagree. Man-made philosophy cannot match divine guidance on divine matters – the human intellect cannot match revelation – but empathy, compassion, the Golden Rule, etc., are practical, common sense rules, really, even if purely utilitarian.

 

Morês existed within the tribe for the benefit and success of the tribe. A person from outside the tribe was not entitled to the same treatment.

Christ made 'love your neighbour' universal in the parable of the good Samaritan and other teachings.

The world is always ready to retreat back into tribalism, imo