Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Evolution Versus Special Creation

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alan on January 9, 2005 06:20:23 UTC


The minimum steps required to differentiate the concept "evolution" from "special creation" as logical constructs:

"Evolution" = slow change.

"a" to "b" is instant change.

"a" to "b" via intermediate step "c" is "slow change".

"Special creation" is instant: suddenly there is "c".

But how do you know its is special creation?

You need two backgrounds: "a" which is before "c", and "b" which is after "c" arrived.

But to define "evolution" you had to "specially create" an intermediate step "c".

So far "special creation" and "evolution" seem to share the same pattern; except as to what is foreground and what is background.

To define "special creation" your background had to evolve from "a" to "b".

To define "evolution" a background had to be specially created to give the change "a" to "b" an intermediate step to make the change slow (or evolving).

How to tell the difference between the two concepts? How to maintain a background that wasn't specially made as an intermediate step?

This would require a blurring of the initial and final conditions: a generalisation that "ticks" both the in-box and the out-box: genetics.

The feature of genetics is "DNA" (curiously the pattern of DNA seems to fit the idea "Do Not agree", as the point of DNA is to maintain the integretity of the initial and final conditions (de-blurring).

But "genetics" already involves "DNA", as it involves separating the in-box from the out-box (the two backgrounds that got blurred in an attempt to try to avoid specially creating an intermediate step to define evolution as a concept).

So how to tell apart the DNA ("do not agree" or
differentiation of two backgrounds faced with a blurring aspect) of "in-box; out-box" from scientific described DNA?

Need an alternative way to blur the backgrounds. RNA provides a ready choice it appears, incredibly the pattern here is "re-negotiate agreement" which fits the acronym "RNA"!

But if tou have scientifically differentiated "genetics", "DNA", and "RNA"; how can you send a message from one blurry background to the other?

Each blurry background would need to make room for the other, accomodate the other. Chemistry!

Chemistry fits the idea "accomodations". A basketball team with great chemistry is a team where the players know each other's game well; they make space for each other, they accomodate each other.

But if you already have defined "genetics", "DNA", "RNA", and "chemistry"; then you've stopped the message? As you already have a message-space; how can you specialise the "message" as you need to get the two blurry backgrounds to talk to each other?

A message that can negotiate room in message-space! A chemical-re-negotiated agreement! Chemical RNA!


it is claimed that based on DNA evidence (comparing DNA from different species) that "evolution" must be real.

But defining more than one DNA requires RNA; and defining more than two DNA requires chemical DNA; and defining more than three DNA would give you chemical RNA (a chemical re-negotiated agreement) that requires MORE chemistry (a CHEMISTRY SET!).

But a chemistry set according to a different analysis I have done is a VIRUS.

See: chemical RNA with MORE chemistry leaves you with the two RNA's sticking needles into each other (you can't have two definitions of re-negotiated agreement without a draft document phase or "middle-earth".

Each side has "infected" the other!

What if science has already got "genetics", "DNA", "RNA", "chemical RNA", and "infection"?

You would need dis-infection; "hobbits" or "middle-earth folk (to stretch a few metaphors)".

The re-negotiated agreement that became blurry so required chemistry; then became more blurry so required more RNA; has broken up the RNA space into bundles of chemicals (pills!).

But science already has "pills".

So how to tell the "pills" hidden in the differentiation-integration (that is hidden in the Einstein relativity, or quantum mechanics, or freedom of things to associate into groups) of the concepts "genetics", "DNA", "RNA", "chemistry", "chemical RNA, "chemistry set set", "infection", "pills" ?

Need "pill boxes"! Need to sort out the pills into boxes, some in here, some over there, or is it the other way round?

The chemical bundles have become unbundled: they have got a distribution pattern that implies special associations (drugs) and special separations (prescriptions).

These terms seem apt as "drug" implies "dozy which a group of chemicals are when treated as a bundle (they are all "asleep" in each others space. "Prescriptions" seems appropriate as "special associations" means "prescribed " (in this scenario each special association prescribes for each other it appears.

But wait! Science already has "drugs" and "prescriptions".

How to differentiate the drugs and prescriptions I described from those of science?

Need a doctor: someone to tell the difference between "drugs" and "prescriptions" by knowing "bio-chemistry" (biographical chemistry: evolutionary chemistry) and medicine (special creation: listening to someone: mediating: giving someone space to share their problem).

But science already has doctors? NO it doesn't. Because "medicine" is claimed to be a science. Does science have "listening"? It is blurry here; sometimes science involves listening, sometimes it involves talking.

Does science have "listening and talking"? No it doesn't, it might have psycho-analysis, but Thomas Szasz describes ethics for pschoanalysis that involve freedom to make contracts (if it is not free, listening can become blurred (not always paying attention because you are paying for attention), and "talking" can become garbled (haranging).

So the problem of differentiating "evolution" from "special creation" appears to have run aground: it requires defining drugs (sleep) and prescriptions (awake) and listening and talking some times (taking turns)(respect for each other).

"respect for each other and being asleep and awake":

If you respect each other you make space for each; a place of rest for each other?

(I can't say because I must ask your opinion first!)(Or I wouldn't be making room for you! Or having said that you are free to give your view I can say well what do you think?)

If you respect each other you are aware of each other's special needs so are awake to each other (can I get you anything? A glass of water? We have experienced people who look out for us).

So we have a sleep-wake boundary.

But I explored a sleep-wake boundary so "respect" is the crunch for me? Defining respect: how do I look out for everybody?



Here is something curious!

Checking what I wrote; I came across :

"basketball team with great chemistry is a tam where the players know each other's game well"

but when I "corrected" "tam" making it "team" I realised that by definition "team" works togther so are looking out for each other so its like they have "tamed" each other? So was my "mistake" of writing "tam" due to subconsciously relating word "team" with "tame"?

But just then I wrote "amed" each other (now corrected to "tamed" (i was thinking maybe "tamed" sounded too compulsory as they don't have to tame each other because what is "tame" anyway? Did I wroite "amed" because it sounds like "armed"?

But of course a basketball team do "arm" each other with ideas for the game? Leaving a new error uncorrected note "wroite": a twist on "write" so it sounds like "right" because I felt I
was what? You tell me!?

Note 2:

I wrote

"how can you specialise the "message" you need to get the two blurry backgrounds to talk to each other?"

on checking I added "as" after "you" and before "need".

The idea occured to me that (but now it seems overly compulsory so now what?) let us say since I do not wish to be tied down here in my association of patterns)(Hey: that sounds like I need "grammer" so I don't HAVE to be tied down with my asociation of patterns as grammer gives you some rules?)

(but "rule" defins "some" as in "select"; is that why I wrote one bracket just before "association" by mistake (since deleted) but this feels too constraining a theory so now what?

Returning to the idea I present here;

the word "as" seems to be like
"two blurry backgrounds CAn talk to each other" when itself is blurry (so get endless string of "as''

need volume control here (CAn is the latest "mistake")

Still feels too restricting this reading-things-into-things

I'll leave it there .... (where?) (wherever you are now?) ?


Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins