Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Nurvingiel]

I understand, and thank you for your nice compliment.

I would say the term "anthropocentric" is appropriate too, but I know what you mean now. I didn't quite explain that right, mostly because I am not qualified to explain a higher being/power/energy/???.

There is no room for several concepts in the human mind. One is infinity, another is nothingness, and another is what the Creator is.

I personally am glad that I don't understand the latter anyway. I don't think we are meant to understand the Universe. (Insert appropriate Douglas Adams quote here.)

Keeping the above in mind, I will continue to explain my ideas in an anthropocentric way since it's easier to explain and understand, and also impossible to avoid completely.

Cheers, Nurv

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
There is no room for several concepts in the human mind. One is infinity, another is nothingness, and another is what the Creator is.

yes and as long as you approach all topics with these facts in mind youll do just fine and your mind will remain open and ready for proper learning. especially that last one. that one trips up quite a few people. but its quite simple. a creator force is well beyond us.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
that one trips up quite a few people. but its quite simple. a creator force is well beyond us.

I beg to differ at least if you mean "well beyond us" to mean that we can have NO meaningful conception of God. It's obvious that we can't entirely comprehend a being like God (if He exists), but I dispute that we can't have ANY meaningful conception of Him.

Let's apply some logic here.

Given the following premise : If a God exists that created our universe ...

then: what conditions would be necessary for us to NOT comprehend him in any meaningful way? I can think of two conditions:

1) Despite the fact that He created the universe, He's not powerful or smart enough to communicate a meaningful idea of Himself to people; or

2) Despite the fact that He created the universe, and that He is powerful and smart enough to communicate a meaningful idea of Himself to people, He has no desire to do this.

Would you guys agree with this? Do you have other options?

[Nurvingiel]

Though we cannot fully comprehend God, we can have a meaningful conception of God.

Thanks for pointing that out RÃ*an. It would damage my theory if I had absolute statements in it, either direct or implied.

[Rían]

You're welcome, Nurvi. Christian theology states that God's great desire is a loving relationship with the people He has created, and that His character may clearly be seen and understood (at a VERY meaningful level, tho obviously not fully) thru the beauty and power of creation and thru the morality in our heart (God is a moral being that makes choices, and we are made in His image, acc'd to the Bible). And His character can be understood further thru the Bible, but not everyone has access to the Bible (or they have access, but don't want to read it) - that's why the creation/morality way of understanding exists, too.

I think to accept the idea that people can't have a meaningful concept of God, one must accept one of the 2 things I listed above. The first one is rather silly, and the second one doesn't make a lot of sense, either, and BOTH are against Christian theology. Remember that tho the existence of God can't be formally, logically proven, one can formally, logically examine statements about Him and see if the deductions from these statements make sense.

And I don't see any problem with absolutes, BTW; you just need to examine them and see if the implications/deductions make sense. When I recover from surgery, I'd like to start up the absolute truth discussion over in the Offshoot thread, and I'd love to see you there! IMO, there are many LOGICAL problems (in the sense of statements that contain formal logical errors and contradict observation) with deductions from the statement that there are no absolute truths.

Have fun in your class, Hobbit! Ask her about the problems with genetic load, when you get to the mutations section, if you feel like it.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
1) Despite the fact that He created the universe, He's not powerful or smart enough to communicate a meaningful idea of Himself to people; or

2) Despite the fact that He created the universe, and that He is powerful and smart enough to communicate a meaningful idea of Himself to people, He has no desire to do this.

Would you guys agree with this? Do you have other options?

you didnt include a very big one: that a creative force is beyond our comprehension. that nothing we conceptualize as "god thinking" (which not surprisingly is directly parallel to human thinking - remember that anthrothingamagigy we talked about Nurvingel?) is in any way relavent because a creative force does not work along the same operating mechanics as the human brain. that all religion is an attempt to lay a shroud over this invisible unatainable object we call creation and spirituality so that we can have SOME way to grasp it comfortably being human nature and all. and this explains why so many religions seem to place god in such a horribly limiting human like way.

[Nariel]

I really must protest. Nurv, you can't create an anthropocentric universe and allow Evolution to govern it. Evolution is by nature chance-oriented. You said earlier (something like this) that we are small beings that evolution has selected to change and become the top of the food chain on this planet. But then you say that your theory is anthropocentric. It can't be. That would be assuming that all other beings in the universe more evolved than we had to at some point go through a "human" stage. I don't know if I'm saying this right. but anyway, you can't assume that all more evolved beings were at one time humans or human derivatives. There are far to many variables to allow this to happen.
In evolution theory, the process that happened on earth is not the only process. It is one of millions (billions) which just so happened to be the best on this planet. THis is assuming that once the Creator started things off he did not intervene and (shall we say) "tweak" evolution to favor humans.
Besides (if you've read Origin of Species and Perservation of Favored Races) you know that Darwin created his theory so that he wouldn't have to have a God involved to mess things up. Evolution is, again, by nature, atheistic.

Sorry to rave there... had a weird moment.

Also: Another option would be that since God is infinite and we are finite, we cannot comprehend Him no matter how hard we try, simply because we are not equipped with the mental capacites to do so.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Nariel
I really must protest. Nurv, you can't create an anthropocentric universe and allow Evolution to govern it. Evolution is by nature chance-oriented. You said earlier (something like this) that we are small beings that evolution has selected to change and become the top of the food chain on this planet. But then you say that your theory is anthropocentric. It can't be. That would be assuming that all other beings in the universe more evolved than we had to at some point go through a "human" stage. I don't know if I'm saying this right. but anyway, you can't assume that all more evolved beings were at one time humans or human derivatives. There are far to many variables to allow this to happen.

um I think what she meant (and what I originally accused her of) was THINKING of god and of gods actions in a human like way. Not that all life is based on human like creatures. Its saying things like “god doesn’t have time to deal with all his creations� or “god wants this� or “god is sad� things like that. That’s applying human thinking mechanics to an all powerful incomprehensible diety. A silly thing to do in my opinion.

Evolution is, again, by nature, atheistic.

says who? God? Why is it impossible for a god to create evolution in his universe as a tool to the formation of life?

[/b]
Also: Another option would be that since God is infinite and we are finite, we cannot comprehend Him no matter how hard we try, simply because we are not equipped with the mental capacites to do so. [/B]

Now yer coming around to what ive been saying.

[brownjenkins]

speaking of putting human attributes on "god"... maybe the idea that there is an overall "purpose" to the universe and that we, as a tniy part of it, are even under consideration is a bit anthropocentric

when you speak of us not being able to comprehend god... might this go the other way also... could a god this incomprehensibly different from us be expected to understand us any better?

i also don't think that a creator has to be all-knowing or all-powerful... just very powerful

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
you didnt include a very big one: that a creative force is beyond our comprehension.

Originally posted by Nariel
Also: Another option would be that since God is infinite and we are finite, we cannot comprehend Him no matter how hard we try, simply because we are not equipped with the mental capacites to do so.

No, IMO, these are NOT new options; these would both fall into one of my 2 categories, because the premise is that God made us, including our mental capacities.

So you're still saying that He could create the whole universe but not be smart/powerful enough to create our brains in such a way that we could have meaningful (but limited) comprehension of Him (option 1), or He could create the whole universe but decide to leave out the capacity in our brains to have some meaningful comprehension of Him, because He doesn't want to communicate with us. I don't see anything outside of my 2 options in your proposed options, unless I'm misunderstanding your options - please let me know if I am.

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
speaking of putting human attributes on "god"... maybe the idea that there is an overall "purpose" to the universe and that we, as a tniy part of it, are even under consideration is a bit anthropocentric

I think it is more than a bit anthropocentric.

when you speak of us not being able to comprehend god... might this go the other way also... could a god this incomprehensibly different from us be expected to understand us any better?

Again, this falls into one of my 2 categories, IMO - into the "God's a good fella, but a few bricks shy of a load" category - like God created us, then said "whoops! I didn't even realize how different I made them! Now they'll NEVER be able to comprehend Me, even a little teensy bit! Rats!!"

BTW, this is also against Christian doctrine, as it is said that we are made in the image of God, so we are actually v. much like Him *tries unsuccessfully to create a few stars* - but to a lesser degree, in the same sense that my young son is v. like his father, but not as strong, and not as wise (and not as cute!)

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
No, IMO, these are NOT new options; these would both fall into one of my 2 categories, because the premise is that God made us, including our mental capacities.

So you're still saying that He could create the whole universe but not be smart/powerful enough to create our brains in such a way that we could have meaningful (but limited) comprehension of Him (option 1), or He could create the whole universe but decide to leave out the capacity in our brains to have some meaningful comprehension of Him, because He doesn't want to communicate with us. I don't see anything outside of my 2 options in your proposed options, unless I'm misunderstanding your options - please let me know if I am.

ok I dont think you are getting my concept though. we cant deem to assume HOW a god or creator "thinks" if they think at all. We shouldnt really even be throwing words around that generally are used to describe human behavior and actions and states of being and attempting to attach them directly to a creator force. no more so then the firing of jellyfish neurons could be used to acurately describe how we concieve of higher order math. and saying "he wouldnt make us in a way that wouldnt allow us to comprehend him" is just circular logic and therefore meaningless

[Nurvingiel]

Woah, I'm getting behind here.

Originally posted by Nariel
I really must protest. Nurv, you can't create an anthropocentric universe and allow Evolution to govern it.

Which of my statements implied or said that the universe centred on human values? I would like to know so I can correct it. As I said before, my theory should contain no such statements.

Evolution is by nature chance-oriented. You said earlier (something like this) that we are small beings that evolution has selected to change and become the top of the food chain on this planet. But then you say that your theory is anthropocentric.

I did say we are small beings in a great universe. This is a small point, but I did not say we were on the top of the food chain. (Ever met a polar bear? I hope not! Also, I have a cold right now, and I am being distinctly reminded that a small microbe is not necessarily lower on the food chain than me. )
I didn't say that my theory itself is anthropocentric, just that the way I would describe it would be. This is only because I'm not any good at thinking other than how a human thinks.

It can't be [anthropocentric]. That would be assuming that all other beings in the universe more evolved than we had to at some point go through a "human" stage. I don't know if I'm saying this right. but anyway, you can't assume that all more evolved beings were at one time humans or human derivatives. There are far to many variables to allow this to happen.

That's correct. I don't think that.

In evolution theory, the process that happened on earth is not the only process. It is one of millions (billions) which just so happened to be the best on this planet. THis is assuming that once the Creator started things off he did not intervene and (shall we say) "tweak" evolution to favor humans.

My theory is that not all the chance events are actually chance, or that the probability was sometimes altered by the Creator. What if the Creator decided to allow the bollide (enormous asteroid) to hit Earth and wipe out the dinosaurs, thereby allowing mammals to evolve? This is not impossible. The chance of that bollide striking Earth when it did was incredibly small. Maybe we are darn lucky (my theory allows for that too), or maybe we, and all other life currently existing on Earth, had help from a higher power.

Besides (if you've read Origin of Species and Perservation of Favored Races) you know that Darwin created his theory so that he wouldn't have to have a God involved to mess things up. Evolution is, again, by nature, atheistic.

I haven't read Origin of Species, but I did study it a bit last year. The point of my theory is to meld two seemingly opposite points of view. Darwinism with God creating the Universe and all life. (Originally I said Darwinism and Creationism, but Creationism is actually extremely set in its ideas. There isn't room in my theory for rigidity or absolute statements, so I'm not incorporating it any more, only parts.)[/b][/quote]

Sorry to rave there... had a weird moment.

No problem. I didn't feel raved at anyway. I'm glad you're challenging my ideas, because I will be able to see if my theory is any good or not.

Also: Another option would be that since God is infinite and we are finite, we cannot comprehend Him no matter how hard we try, simply because we are not equipped with the mental capacites to do so.

I agree that we do not have the mental capacity to fully understand what God is. (That would ruin the mystery. Where's the fun in that?) However, we can love God, and comprehend some part of God's love, and maybe even part of what God is.
The prime example of this for Christians is Jesus giving his life for our sins. 2000 years later, his teachings are still important and relevant, and his sacrifice for us is moving and powerful. I don't feel that I'm explaining such an incredible and wonderful event properly, but it did help Christians understand something about God. Sometimes were not sure what it is (I'm not), but the understanding is there. I'm sure all religions have equally meaningful and important teachings or events that help them understand God better.

Cheers, Nurv

Appendix: I think definitions of "anthropocentric" and "anthropomorphize" should be posted for the assistance of all.

I could only find anthropomorphize:
"Attribute human form or personality to (God etc. or abs.). Hence ~ISM, ~IST."

[Nariel]

anthropocentric means that the theory (or whatever is under discussion) is centered on humans.

BTW, Nurv, your theory is nothing new. It's been around since just after 1859 (HEY, that's when OoS came out!). I don't mean to take away your inventor's joy, but that's the truth.

Question that is kind of off topic: Why do you assume that a collision of some sort wiped out the dinosaurs?

Also: We live in a universe that would not exist without absolutes... Where do you draw the line?

I have lots more to say, but I prefer to address specific issues rather than broad ideas.

[Rían]

(Nariel - I love the "Aragorn" and the "Owl" lines in your sig!!! I like the REAL Winnie-the-Pooh, and the ORIGINAL illustrations by Ernest Shepherd, which are incredibly beautiful, IMO)

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
ok I dont think you are getting my concept though. we cant deem to assume HOW a god or creator "thinks" if they think at all.

I completely agree that what WE think does NOT determine how the Creator IS. For example, if I think that God is kind, that does NOT necessarily mean that He IS kind, nor does it somehow MAKE Him kind if He is not. I completely understand that.

However, that does NOT mean that we cannot apply logical thinking to statements about God. And the statement that you made, "a creator force is well beyond us", can be subjected to logical analysis. And I continue to think that given that statement (and again, assuming that by "well beyond us", you mean beyond ANY meaningful comprehension), there are only 2 valid logical deductions that can be made, which I will repeat:

1) Despite the fact that He created the universe, He's not powerful or smart enough to communicate a meaningful idea of Himself to people; or

2) Despite the fact that He created the universe, and that He is powerful and smart enough to communicate a meaningful idea of Himself to people, He has no desire to do this.


Now I would like to venture a statement: If there is a God that is powerful and wise enough to create the Universe, it is a reasonable possibility to think that He would want to communicate with us. Now given that statement, a logical deduction would be that He would make us, and our environment, in such a way that we could have a limited, but very meaningful, comprehension of Him.

We shouldnt really even be throwing words around that generally are used to describe human behavior and actions and states of being and attempting to attach them directly to a creator force.

I believe that it is more reasonable to assume MY statement, and in short, for many logical reasons, I believe that the Christian worldview as stated in the Bible is the accurate representation of how the world really is, and in Christian theology, it is stated that (1) man is made in the image of God, thus there is common ground for understanding; (2) man can see what God is like, in the person of His Son, Jesus; (3) man can see attributes of God in the glory of creation; (4) man can understand attributes of God thru the morality that God has placed in his heart. So IMO, we SHOULD be applying words that "generally are used to describe human behavior and actions and states of being and attempting to attach them directly to a creator force", because God Himself does this

no more so then the firing of jellyfish neurons could be used to acurately describe how we concieve of higher order math. and saying "he wouldnt make us in a way that wouldnt allow us to comprehend him" is just circular logic and therefore meaningless

Since a jellyfish is not made in the image of man, this analogy is not relevant, IMO. And I don't see where I have used circular logic at all.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Nariel
BTW, Nurv, your theory is nothing new. It's been around since just after 1859 (HEY, that's when OoS came out!). I don't mean to take away your inventor's joy, but that's the truth.

That's alright. I thought of it idependently, though belatedly. Who is the clever person/people that beat me to it?

Question that is kind of off topic: Why do you assume that a collision of some sort wiped out the dinosaurs?

I don't just randomly assume this, it is a fairly well established theory, and a good one too. The theory is that a bollide struck Earth about 60 million years ago (I actually forget when, but I'll dig out my notes if you really insist). I was so large that it created a nuclear winter, which led to the dinosaurs being killed off. The crator is theoretically the Gulf of Mexico. This event let mammals evolve into much more varied and numerous species - they would have been outcompeted by the dinosaurs otherwise.

Also: We live in a universe that would not exist without absolutes... Where do you draw the line?

I've been thinking about this as well. I do imply a few, you may have noticed them.
1. That the Creator did create the Universe and all life, and is the sole being to do this.
2. That evolution exists and does occur. It may not be exactly as Darwin conjectured, but it occurs none the less.

Possibly others.

What is OoS?

[Lizra]

Oh boy...the thread that never ends!

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I completely agree that what WE think does NOT determine how the Creator IS.

Lizra adds.......And on that note, may I jump in and add Tthat (IMO) thinking there is a creator, does not make it so, either!


Rian.......For example, if I think that God is kind, that does NOT necessarily mean that He IS kind, nor does it somehow MAKE Him kind if He is not. I completely understand that.

However, that does NOT mean that we cannot apply logical thinking to statements about God.

Lizra......I think you can apply them if you want to, but they really don't have a lot of actual "logical" value to anyone but the particular group of "believers" invovled.

Rian........And the statement that you made, "a creator force is well beyond us", can be subjected to logical analysis. And I continue to think that given that statement (and again, assuming that by "well beyond us", you mean beyond ANY meaningful comprehension), there are only 2 valid logical deductions that can be made, which I will repeat:

1) Despite the fact that He created the universe, He's not powerful or smart enough to communicate a meaningful idea of Himself to people; or

2) Despite the fact that He created the universe, and that He is powerful and smart enough to communicate a meaningful idea of Himself to people, He has no desire to do this.

Lizra.......These two "logical" statements cause me to "logically" come to the conclusion that a "HE" didn't do anything! Forces are not a "he". The logical conclusion (for me) is that a "he" did not create. This "creator" story is made up by humans, to make them feel special.

It is more logical (IMO) to think the world was created by naturally occuring forces, perhaps too complex or perhaps nonexistant anymore in the current state of the naturally changing universe, and that the attempt to label these forces as a sentient, all powerful "he" is just a homicentric (man centered) attempt to label and control things.
What started these forces of course nobody knows (yet! ) ....but to jump to the conclusion that it was an all powerful super being is WAY too much of a stretch for my logic.

Rian.......Now I would like to venture a statement: If there is a God that is powerful and wise enough to create the Universe, it is a reasonable possibility to think that He would want to communicate with us. Now given that statement, a logical deduction would be that He would make us, and our environment, in such a way that we could have a limited, but very meaningful, comprehension of Him.

Lizra......Sure, fine...but there just isn't any believable proof of a "god", all powerful and wise. Many posts have been made to show the opposite is true. IMO this is simply a nice warm fuzzy story.


Rian.......I believe that it is more reasonable to assume MY statement, and in short, for many logical reasons, I believe that the Christian worldview as stated in the Bible is the accurate representation of how the world really is, and in Christian theology, it is stated that (1) man is made in the image of God, thus there is common ground for understanding; (2) man can see what God is like, in the person of His Son, Jesus; (3) man can see attributes of God in the glory of creation; (4) man can understand attributes of God thru the morality that God has placed in his heart.

Lizra.......Of course members of the Christian Church think that the christian worldview is an accurate representation of how the world really is! People want what "they believe" to be true, (or else they look foolish!),and religious organizations want to have believability/power over other organizations, so they try to annoint themselves as "the truth speakers", in an attempt to give them this credibility/power. But "logic and reason" is certainly in the eye of the beholder! The term "accuracy", when speaking of many unknowns does not seem valid, (IMO) no matter how logical things may seem to an individual.

Rian.......So IMO, we SHOULD be applying words that "generally are used to describe human behavior and actions and states of being and attempting to attach them directly to a creator force", because God Himself does this

Lizra......I thought the people who wrote the bible were the ones who did this. There is no believable proof of a God ever speakng, IMO

Sorry! I didn't manipulate the quote very well! hope this makes readable sense.

[Nariel]

OoS: Origin of Species: didn't want to write the whole thing out.

Also, I have several problems with the Collision theory on many levels. I will point out a few of my problems:

There is far too much evidence for the coexistance of dinosaurs and humans. There are cave drawings as little as 3000 years old of dinosaurs attacking mammoths. Marco Polo reported seeing a dinosaur (alive and well) in one of his expeditions. Modern tribes worship giant lizards which they feed. Many of the modern (that's saying in the last 500 years) historians have reported seeing flying lizards and huge reptiles alive in their time. These are only a few examples of evidence that dinosaurs not only coexisted with humans, but were (and possible still are) alive until quite recent times.

Also, there is simply not enough time for rodents to develop into humans in just 60 million years. It's an established fact that the genetic difference between the most human-like ape and the most ape-like human is about 300 mutations. Now, most mutations are negative. I'm talking about 300 BENEFICIAL mutations. These only occur very rarely (if at all). There has never been a documented beneficial mutation actually observed. So let"s say (just for kicks) that a mutation (which don"t occur very often) occurs once every five hundred years. And one out of every thousand mutations (and that is being generous) is beneficial. So we have three hundred thousand mutations to get from the most human-like ape to the most ape-like human. Given that mutations occur once every five hundred years (a very small amount of time for evolution) we would need (by simple multiplication) one hundred and fifty million years just to get from ape ancestors to humans. That"s more than twice the amount of time since you say the dinosaurs died out. Do you see where I have a problem? Or several?

(BTW, my keyboard went nuts so that's why I typed out all the numbers... they didn't work. That"also why all my apostrophes are quotation marks...)

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I completely agree that what WE think does NOT determine how the Creator IS. For example, if I think that God is kind, that does NOT necessarily mean that He IS kind, nor does it somehow MAKE Him kind if He is not. I completely understand that.

that’s not at all what I was saying. You are still viewing things from inside the bubble.

And I continue to think that given that statement (and again, assuming that by "well beyond us", you mean beyond ANY meaningful comprehension), there are only 2 valid logical deductions that can be made, which I will repeat:

1) Despite the fact that He created the universe, He's not powerful or smart enough to communicate a meaningful idea of Himself to people; or

2) Despite the fact that He created the universe, and that He is powerful and smart enough to communicate a meaningful idea of Himself to people, He has no desire to do this.

Now I would like to venture a statement: If there is a God that is powerful and wise enough to create the Universe, it is a reasonable possibility to think that He would want to communicate with us. Now given that statement, a logical deduction would be that He would make us, and our environment, in such a way that we could have a limited, but very meaningful, comprehension of Him.

and you would continue to be missing my point. Words like “communicate� and “smart� and “desire� are useless in this discussion. When you bring them in you are talking about something else then what I am talking about. So perhaps you are unwilling to entertain the idea of diety unless and only if it’s the super specific Christian diety you believe in. in that case we don’t really have much to say about this topic or the philosophy of creation really. I think its silly to approach the concept of an all powerful universe creating force from the point of view of “hes just like us!!�. You don’t.

I believe that it is more reasonable to assume MY statement, and in short, for many logical reasons, I believe that the Christian worldview as stated in the Bible is the accurate representation of how the world really is, and in Christian theology, it is stated that (1) man is made in the image of God, thus there is common ground for understanding; (2) man can see what God is like, in the person of His Son, Jesus; (3) man can see attributes of God in the glory of creation; (4) man can understand attributes of God thru the morality that God has placed in his heart. So IMO, we SHOULD be applying words that "generally are used to describe human behavior and actions and states of being and attempting to attach them directly to a creator force", because God Himself does this

ok but remember im not speaking of the bible or even the flavor of the month religion among some earthlings. Im talking Grande Scheme here. Unified Theory stuff. Creative force versus human mind. No contest. No parallel. No chance to even begin to understand. Christianity and all other religions are attempts (HUMAN attempts using the HUMAN brain) to flesh out the divine and flesh out forces beyond our comprehension. Describing said creative force with simple pathetic human emotions and convincing ourselves that this creative force thinks we are super special and the most important things in the universe is an error on so many levels in my opinion. But its understandable for limited humans considering their biases to make such errors. So I don’t hold it against you.