Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[wahine]

Lizra you seemed a bit clueless *first 3 sentences*

And so am I, I am just a simple girl...*dreamy stare*

*drool*

You can sit by ME Lizra.

Well, I have to say I never saw any indefinite/undeniable evidence supporting creation...the fact that we exist is hardly evidence enough.

Rian,
I don't think this is going the way you planned. Some people are thick, huh *drool*

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by RÃ*an

And there IS proof of creationism in the fossil recordthe fact that even in the Cambrian there are an abundant amount of distinct types, some of which are around today, as opposed to intermediates; the types of finds in the Cambrian fossil plant record (more distinct types, many of which are found today, and plants are supposed to come way after the Cambrian acc'd to evolutionism, if I understand correctly); the Cambrian insect record - again, distinct, well-defined types, some around today.

My problem with this, Rian, is that I don't understand what the term "Cambrian" can possibly mean to a YEC-

By definition, you can't accept the standard meaning as used by say, the United States Geological Survey (what do those guys know about rocks, anyway?) i.e. the period from 570 million years to 505 million years ago (mya)

So when you say

- the extreme complexity of some of the creatures in the Cambrian, the earliest age with abundant fossil remains;

you obviously don't believe that this is what the Cambrian period is- so what is it?

BTW- Three boys, 11, 9, and 8- in themselves prove positive that we descended from lower life forms, and are rapidly heading back that way

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Cirdan
...but Ruinel, 90% of creationism is the attacking of the ToE.

.

I must have mised the other 10%....

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
I must have mised the other 10%....

That would be the made up stuff.

[Rían]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
So when you say you obviously don't believe that this is what the Cambrian period is- so what is it?

When I use "Cambrian" I mean what is commonly referred to as "Cambrian".

BTW- Three boys, 11, 9, and 8- in themselves prove positive that we descended from lower life forms, and are rapidly heading back that way

Really? You called yourself an "old atheist" once on the Offshoot thread, IIRC, and I took you literally! You must be closer to my age (quite young, really! )

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Lizra
But I find "intelligent design" unaccecptable (re Rian...."complexity comes from intelligence") because that only sets your questioning back futher by then causing you to puzzle on how the *intelligence* that started things up got "there".The *intelligence* would have to be more complex than the world it was setting into motion (having uncomprehendible *power* to do these feats of cosmic birthing).

Unfortunately science isn't very good at answering questions that do not allow for reductionism. In order to get at the concept of infinity it is necesary to reduce it. Which is generally pretty difficult, even with statistics... Which is one of the reasons your objection, while notable, really isn't satisfying. It's the same objection, i.e. we can't measure it.

It's still the same insistance on empirical proof for a philosophical theory...

IMO, The intelligent designer could NOT be infinite in its beginning, (always there, never starting, just always being) that is unacceptible (stupid! ) to me.

Why is the idea of a creative force any more astounding than the idea of space existing infinately with no begining? After all, the idea of the big bang is that it's a 5th dimensional entity intruding into 4 dimensions. If you insist that you can't make nothing from something either viewpoint is troubled by the notion. There's no such thing as "void". It doesn't exist, by it's very definition...

I don't doubt that the word intelligent is a problem for you, I should just state that intelligent doesn't neccesarily mean what we think of as ordinary intelligence. Cognizance or self awareness could also be substituted, though really it's just splitting hairs. Perhaps the idea of a 5th dimensional self aware space seems a little less intimidating...

The huge gaping chasm of time seems to be the only way for me to see complexity arising. "Things" are possible given enough time, and as you stated, the space begins to fill.

Err... actually complexity was present form the very moment entropy started to affect the thermodynamics...

If you think humans are complex... oh nevermind. Time is an illusion. It's like a gravatic direction for entropy. It will even loop back on itself (which is one of the current explinations for the inflation of the universe). Time doesn't give rise to complexity, it allows entropy to settle the complexity into the lowest "space".

Anyway, I have to go smack a hacker now....

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I asked this before and got no response - has anyone else read Darwin's The Origin of Species? I'm about 2/3 of the way thru now...

Yes. I read it donkey's years ago. I'll have to re-read it sometime.

[Giroth]

aw guys,I'm not trying to pick a fight.If I had evidence that you would believe and that was more understandable to you,then I'd most certainly post it.

Oh yeah,and I'm not the only one replying snidely when I disagree,Jersey

I just defend creationism because I believe it more over evolution because I'm a Christian.And I know other people believe creationism but aren't christians,I know,but this is just MY reason to believe it.

Well,I'm gone again from here!Besides,I need to get real pumped-like for my vacation!

See ya,

~Giroth

[Lizra]

Originally posted by Blackheart




Err... actually complexity was present form the very moment entropy started to affect the thermodynamics...

If you think humans are complex... oh nevermind. Time is an illusion. It's like a gravatic direction for entropy. It will even loop back on itself (which is one of the current explinations for the inflation of the universe). Time doesn't give rise to complexity, it allows entropy to settle the complexity into the lowest "space".

Anyway, I have to go smack a hacker now....

Would you please explain the first sentence. I don't quite grasp what it is you are trying to communicate! Also ...you can throw gravatic direction for entrophy in the translation too.
It dosen't really matter to me whether science can measure my questions or not! I still wonder.
The "entrophy" seems pretty complex to me...what are you saying man!

I just used the word "void" as a random word to describe the pre bang/whatever state.

Somebody please give Wahine a droolbucket!

[Sheeana]

Well, THAT depends on what kind of entropy he's talking about.

[Lizra]

Who knows? I suppose he means "a hypothetical tendency for the universe to attain a state of maximum homogeneity" ... excuse me though....my drool is thickening...

[Blackheart]

Entropy.

Entrophy's I keep on my shelf.

Actually it's more, what kind of complexity does he mean... shouldn't have used complexity for two different meanings...

Entropy is the tendancy for energy to occupy the lowest state or space.

It's what makes bubbles (for example). Because wonderful little bubbles are spherical, they are a low space...

Bubbles aren't what you would call complex, compared to a random seething mass of molecules... but they ARE more complex in another way, they have an inside and an outside...

I don't know if that communicates anything to you....

Without entropy the universe would still be a seething hot mass of molecules, very complex. The number of interactions would be impossible to register, perhaps "approaching" the infinite.

However, because we have gravity (which is, as best as I can grasp it, a form of entropy that causes matter to assume the lowest energy state by altering the way the energy content of the matter interacts with space[by "bending" space]), all these neat little stars and other clumps of matter form... like bubbles.

"Time" is another example, it's the direction (a direction like down, in that it is relative) that entropy moves in for inflation of the universe. Apparantly the universe's "low energy state" consists of very empty areas of virtual particles (empty space) studded with singularities... Though that is of course speculation.

Void as a term to describe pre-big bang?

But that's just it, the idea that there was a pre-big bang is remarkable similar to the objection that you are just moving the "questioning back futher"....

... Why is that girl drooling?

[Lizra]

So Blackheart, what are you saying in relation to the creation versus evolution debate? (Lizra wipes the drool from her mouth ) You can pick holes in both? Picking holes is fairly easy! That's what we've been doing to each other for endless pages as it is!

(Gives Blackheart the "unbiased theory dismantler" award for his shelf)

Entrophy then, seems more complex than randomness (IMO) mainly because there IS order. A random seething mass of molecules certainly might have many ( more) reactions going on, but order is what I am looking for when thinking of complexity. Order that builds upon itself, with the end result being tangible items.

(I'm not advocating the existence of "a void", it was just a figure of speech to describe the possibility of a *time* before the *order* began.)

The order gets more complex over time ( by time, I mean a successive measurement of intervals, one following another, in a continuuum...past, present, future...) and builds upon itself, branching out, blah, blah, blah, as I described in the evolution thread. I still see this as more feasible than an "intelligent designer"..a la the bible.

Are you calling the *intelligent designer* a natural force...not a being? I don't think that's what the god people are talking about!

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Lizra
You can pick holes in both? Picking holes is fairly easy

No, I'm filling in the holes....

Creationism is a mythical account, Evolution is a scientific account. Neither is satisfying because neither can give a complete view of reality because of the inherant biases of their respective foundations.

Entrophy then, seems more complex than randomness (IMO) mainly because there IS order.

If you define complexity as STRUCTURE (which is what I probably should have done) then yes. The structure arises from the "spaces" inherant in the "natural laws". Like electron shells, there are "resting spaces" where energy is in a low state. Inertia if you like.

A random seething mass of molecules certainly might have many ( more) reactions going on, but order is what I am looking for when thinking of complexity. Order that builds upon itself, with the end result being tangible items.

Structure is only one kind of complexity. And "order" can easily arise in chaotic masses with only a couple of universal parameters. But yes, I understand that you are refering to structure.

The order gets more complex over time ( by time, I mean a successive measurement of intervals, one following another, in a continuuum...past, present, future...) and builds upon itself, branching out, blah, blah, blah, as I described in the evolution thread. I still see this as more feasible than an "intelligent designer"..a la the bible.

Actually it would seem to be a curve, not a straight progression. (can't really comment on whether it's a bell curve or not..) There is no steady increasing amount of structure over time. Eventually the universe will be in a binary state- empty space (or homogenous low state space) and singularities. Which is less "structure" than we currently have.

The nub of it is that you can't have something from nothing. You can't have evolution without the "spaces". You can't have "Creatio ex nihilum".

One law of quantum mechanics states that the smaller the time interval, the smaller the probability for a quantum event. If you adhere to the "Creatio ex nihilum" view then at the moment of the beginning, the universe's time interval is zero. With a zero time interval, the probability for a universe to pop into existence through some kind of quantum event would equal zero. You can't get something from nothing. Time and energy had to have existed pre-bang, though not neccesarily in forms we are familair with.

Are you calling the *intelligent designer* a natural force...not a being? I don't think that's what the god people are talking about!

Err.. exactly what is the difference between a being and a natural force? Self awareness? What if you had a natural force that was, by its nature, self aware?

Well of course it's not what creationists are talking about, nor evolutionists (not biologists- but evolutionists- those who take their cosmological view from evolution- some people call them Darwinists). This is a meta-philosophy that goes outside mythical or empirical viewpoints. I don't really care what "the god people" or "the anti-god" people think, they're both wrong.

[Lizra]

Well, I think I understand your statements better now. I agree with the curve, no not a straight progression, certainly some kind of progression though.

That time and energy (in some form) had to exist before the "bang" (or whatever started things rolling) because you can't get something from nothing makes good sense to me also.

By *natural force* versus *being*, I meant a natural force that automatically causes order to occur, as a by product ....versus a "being" who is purposfully causing order to appear at *it's* specifications, with the intent of creating a world. (or whatever you want to call this place! ) I'm trying to imagine a natural force that by it's very nature is self aware, but the best I can do is an image of an entity that is complex...many different natural forces working together. (It must be that "intelligence" bit) Could you elaborate a little more?

I would appreciate it if you would tell me (again perhaps, if I didn't catch it before) what is the "inherent" bias in the foundation of the theory of evolution?

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Lizra
By *natural force* versus *being*, I meant a natural force that automatically causes order to occur, as a by product

I'm not particularly fond of the term "order" because it's a little fuzzy...

Interestingly enough, what are these "natural forces" that cause structure to occur? Are they measurable? Well, we can measure their effects, but not the origins....

....versus a "being" who is purposfully causing order to appear at *it's* specifications, with the intent of creating a world. (or whatever you want to call this place! )

Ahh. Well no wonder you're having difficulty with the concept. You are ascribing anthropomorphic attributes to something that we cannot measure. Attributes like intent, purpose, and even the concept of specification are not something that necessarily applies.

I'm trying to imagine a natural force that by it's very nature is self aware, but the best I can do is an image of an entity that is complex...many different natural forces working together. (It must be that "intelligence" bit) Could you elaborate a little more?

I can give examples.... A self aware meme for example. It need not be a "complex" structure, nor does it even necessarily need to be an entity. Yes I think the term intelligence is confusing you.

Awareness is perception. That's all you need to qualify for aware. To qualify as a self aware natural force, the natural force need only percieve itself. One could argue that certain quantum states are "self aware" in that they "perceive themself perceiving themself". The universe is structured for an observer.

I would appreciate it if you would tell me (again perhaps, if I didn't catch it before) what is the "inherent" bias in the foundation of the theory of evolution?

I was unclear actually. By the bias in the foundation of evolution I meant the inherant bias in the foundation of evolutionists/darwinists (those who "worship" the concept of evolution). It is the same bias that underlies all of science, though. It regards only empirical phenomena. If it cannot be measured it does not exist, would be another way to put it, though that is probably too simplistic.

This is, in fact, science's greatest strength, and at the same time, it's greatest weakness. Darwinists have the same bias, because their tenants are based on the same foundations.

You may note that bias does not always have a negative implication. However when one does not account for bias, it can have negative effects. Such as a narrow view, in the case of Darwinists, for example.

[Lizra]

I see. Thank you for taking the time to chat with me Blackheart! I conclude then, that I personally don't have much of a problem with my *belief* in evolution. I do not veiw evolution as a be all, end all "theory" that explains everything from top to bottom. It seems to be quite an important part of the biological story, though. (IMO) I will certainly never know the secrets of the universe in my lifetime, and I wonder if they will ever be known! I do feel totally convinced that the creation story, as written in the bible, is not the truth, and continue to be amazed that others believe it! Oh well! To each her own!

[Rían]

(hey, GrayMouser, I sent you a PM - do you have them enabled?)

[Rían]

ok, people, I'm rested up a bit now, and I've been thinking about this thread, and as the OFFICIAL THREAD STARTER I'd like to set the following rule:

ANYONE who would like to participate in this discussion may request a 3-hour block of time to post, uninterrupted, some evidence/information/rebuttal/discussion/etc. on the topic of "Evidence for Creationism".

This rule is to enable a topic that is rather more complex than "Who is cuter - Orli or Viggo?" to be more coherently discussed.

I suggest that anyone that wants to take advantage of this would post an initial post in bolded, larger letters saying something like "I'm starting my 3-hour block of posting time now - please do not post during this period ", and when finished, post a "I'm finished now" post in the same style. And also, now that I think of it, at the end of EACH post in between, put something like "To Be Continued... please don't interrupt". And of course, the other posters here please honor that request. And perhaps do some type of numbering/identification thing in the title area, so we can refer back to "your post #5" or something like that.

Does anyone have any refinements or improvements to suggest? If I don't hear from anyone in the near future, then I'll take my turn first since I'm the only creationism poster at the present.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by RÃ*an


Does anyone have any refinements or improvements to suggest? If I don't hear from anyone in the near future, then I'll take my turn first since I'm the only creationism poster at the present.

how bout just prepare it all offline in a word processor and then post it all at once when yer ready. shouldnt take 3 hours. thats what i do in the real heavy duty argument threads when i have enough information to fill 2 or 3 or more posts.