How is there reality without God?

[EarthScienceguy]

Neils Bohr
"No Phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon." Or another way to say this is that a tree does not fall in a forest unless it is observed.

The only way for there to be an objective reality is if God is the constant observer everywhere.

Physicist John Archibald Wheeler: "It is wrong to think of the past as 'already existing' in all detail. The 'past' is theory. The past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present."

God is everywhere so He can observe everywhere and produce objective reality.

[JoeyKnothead]

You continue to show that your use of 'dissimulate truth' rather than 'disseminate truth' is at best a Freudian slip since you are doing your best to hide truth by quoting out of context. I reiterate, YOUR own source, the scientist Carroll, fully believes in evolution and has said so quite clearly. Your attempt to twist his words because of his candor about what he does not know is noted.

I don't think there's a better representation of the inherent dishonesty behind creationism than the common creationist practice of quote mining. At some point, some creationist had to sit down, read through the original source, and deliberately carve out the quote in a way specifically intended to mislead others about what the author said.

I suppose the creationists who later blindly copy the mined quotes could be characterized as having been duped, but so many times I've seen them just go right back to the same source even after they've been shown how it's dishonest.

I truly think it's impossible to advocate creationism in an honest manner.

If I don't attribute it to malice, the alternative still ain't a point of pride.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #118]

The so called "sudden appearance" is misleading, a common [ahem] dissimulation. In addition to the relative rarity of fossils in the Cambrian, we have:

So are you saying you do not believe in punctuated equilibrium?

Why was punctuated equilibrium developed?

I will give you a hint. From your cited article.

"Fossil deposits before the Cambrian are rarer, making it difficult to be sure how sudden any appearances were."

[Jose Fly]

Why was punctuated equilibrium developed?

You don't know? Haven't you read Gould and Eldredge's paper on it?

They proposed it because paleontologists were viewing the fossil record through a mode of speciation that population geneticists had already shown wasn't the dominant type. So Gould and Eldredge wrote a paper to their fellow paleontologists urging them to adopt population geneticists' framework.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #123]

They proposed it because paleontologists were viewing the fossil record through a mode of speciation that population geneticists had already shown wasn't the dominant type. So Gould and Eldredge wrote a paper to their fellow paleontologists urging them to adopt population geneticists' framework.

Really? Because California Berkely said the following. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/more-on- ... uilibrium/

4. No preservation: No fossils representing transitional forms are preserved because of their relatively small population size, the rapid pace of change, and their isolated location.

1. No transitional forms are preserved. This would be the sudden appearance.
2. The rapid pace of change. What scientific evidence is there that this is even possible?

[William]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #124]

2. The rapid pace of change.
Q: What scientific evidence is there that this is even possible?

Click Pic For Link.

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #123]

They proposed it because paleontologists were viewing the fossil record through a mode of speciation that population geneticists had already shown wasn't the dominant type. So Gould and Eldredge wrote a paper to their fellow paleontologists urging them to adopt population geneticists' framework.

Really? Because California Berkely said the following. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/more-on- ... uilibrium/

4. No preservation: No fossils representing transitional forms are preserved because of their relatively small population size, the rapid pace of change, and their isolated location.

1. No transitional forms are preserved. This would be the sudden appearance.
2. The rapid pace of change. What scientific evidence is there that this is even possible?

So you obviously haven't read Gould and Eldredge's paper, nor does it seem you understand how the modes of speciation under PE generate those outcomes in the fossil record. And the scientific evidence showing that it's possible are the observed and documented cases of it.

https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionar ... speciation

[William]

You continue to show that your use of 'dissimulate truth' rather than 'disseminate truth' is at best a Freudian slip since you are doing your best to hide truth by quoting out of context. I reiterate, YOUR own source, the scientist Carroll, fully believes in evolution and has said so quite clearly. Your attempt to twist his words because of his candor about what he does not know is noted.

I don't think there's a better representation of the inherent dishonesty behind creationism than the common creationist practice of quote mining. At some point, some creationist had to sit down, read through the original source, and deliberately carve out the quote in a way specifically intended to mislead others about what the author said.

I suppose the creationists who later blindly copy the mined quotes could be characterized as having been duped, but so many times I've seen them just go right back to the same source even after they've been shown how it's dishonest.

I truly think it's impossible to advocate creationism in an honest manner.

If I don't attribute it to malice, the alternative still ain't a point of pride.

My current opinion is that the practice came about in response to a similar activity atheists of Darwin's time were occupied in. The 'quote-mining' was being done with Darwin's discovery's because it was the sure hope of atheists, that Darwin's work - once published - would result in the final death-blow to the theory we exist within a created thing. They believed it would 'Kill God".

The defense mechanism kicked in for Theists, who - already skilled in the practice [re denominations] chose to - rather than embrace the new information as evidence on how a creator created - simply erect more fortifications around their favored beliefs, not allowing new information to disrupt said beliefs.

eta;

Posted Wed Sep 07, 2022 12:45 pm

William: [As always, this is my opinion on the evidence so far presented.]

My own understanding of Atheism is that it is "The Unconscious lack of belief in Gods" and things spiral out from that core position.

The conscious lack of belief in Gods derives from reaction to theistic narratives and becomes the driving force of opposition as it moves away from the core-meaning - becoming what I refer to collectively as "The Atheisms".

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #126]

So you obviously haven't read Gould and Eldredge's paper, nor does it seem you understand how the modes of speciation under PE generate those outcomes in the fossil record. And the scientific evidence showing that it's possible are the observed and documented cases of it.

So you are telling California Berkely that they do not know what they are talking about. Sure dude.

So what experimental evidence do you have a rapid specialization? Theory is not experimental evidence.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to William in post #125]
So what experimental evidence do you have?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #125]
So what experimental evidence do you have?

Things just appear that way due to our position within things and our ignorance about most things.