Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I think perhaps we have a word definition problem here? What I mean by "self-existent" is something that is NOT created. It's a logical impossibility for something to create itself, so it is logically necessary, since things DO exist, that there is something that is self-existent that is behind creation.

Crystals grow from a liquid state into a structured state based on the physical properties of the particular molecules that make them up. The molecules could have be altered by external processes lacking any sort of cognizance or intent of creation (e.g. hydrothermal activity). The molecules can be asembled from indivdual elements. Elements are a naural by-product of fusion events in the universe. It is a logical flaw to state that since self creation is impossible that external creation is the only alternative.

And if you want to claim that everything could be an illusion,[/clip]

Everything we know within ourselves is an illusion until we can validate it with group consensus. This is why humans, a very social animal, neeed human contact to help maintain psychological stability. I'm pretty sure that the pavement I hit when my bicycle slid on some mud was NOT an illusion, however. But I have a wealth of human experience that reinforces my belief that my analysis of the event was correct from an objective POV.

Pass the popcorn, please

[Lady Magpie]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I think perhaps we have a word definition problem here? What I mean by "self-existent" is something that is NOT created. It's a logical impossibility for something to create itself, so it is logically necessary, since things DO exist, that there is something that is self-existent that is behind creation. There's no comfort involved at all - comfort has nothing to do with anything here.

And if you want to claim that everything could be an illusion, then go ahead but I won't join into that discussion. Personally, I'd rather spend time discussing things with the assumption that things ARE pretty much what they seem. It's just my personal preference. Altho I don't know that things AREN'T an illusion, for me, it's a waste of time to take up that assumption and try to discuss it. But that's just MHO and people that want to assume illusion may certainly do so - I won't try to stop them - but I won't join into the discussion, either.

I'm not going to try to argue the illusion bit. I was merely pointing out that we don't know. I could go find loads of philisophical papers on the subject, but I won't right now because that's not what we're really talking about here. But that was what the comfort bit was about. . .it's more comfortable for us to believe that all this--the world--is real rather than something we are imagining.

So, I think for now we've reached the consensus that things exist, yes, at least for the sake of this argument? Okay. Good. Now for some logic.

Things Exist. (P)

It does not follow from the existence of things (P) that something created those things. In other words, the only logical conclusion you can draw from "P" (the existence of things) is P. If you want to try to give me a logical proof of creation, go ahead, but you need more than just the existence of things to prove it using logic.

Furthermore, you contradict yourself--you just said that something nothing can be self-existent, because nothing can create itself. But then:

so it is logically necessary, since things DO exist, that there is something that is self-existent that is behind creation.

So if nothign can be self-existent, how can there be a self-existent creator behind all of it?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lady Magpie
So, I think for now we've reached the consensus that things exist, yes, at least for the sake of this argument? Okay. Good.

Okay

Furthermore, you contradict yourself--you just said that something nothing can be self-existent, because nothing can create itself. But then: So if nothign can be self-existent, how can there be a self-existent creator behind all of it? [/B]

I didn't say nothing can be self-existent. I said nothing can create itself, which is very different. Could you please clear up what you wrote - you've got a mistake in there and I'm not sure which word you meant (you said "something nothing" in the first sentence - which one did you mean?) Or should I just back up and try to reword things? Which would you prefer?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Crystals grow from a liquid state into a structured state based on the physical properties of the particular molecules that make them up. The molecules could have be altered by external processes lacking any sort of cognizance or intent of creation (e.g. hydrothermal activity). The molecules can be asembled from indivdual elements. Elements are a naural by-product of fusion events in the universe.

Yes, all effects require a cause, and the cause does NOT have to have intent or cognizance.

It is a logical flaw to state that since self creation is impossible that external creation is the only alternative.

I think you read more into my statement than I intended. Perhaps because I worded it a bit sloppily - sorry. When I said " there is something that is self-existent that is behind creation", I didn't mean that the "something" had to be a cognizant being; I just meant that something had to be self-existent (i.e., non-created), because that's the only alternative to something that's created. Whether it's God or a mass of goo is another question.

Everything we know within ourselves is an illusion until we can validate it with group consensus.

I disagree, but won't take it up

Pass the popcorn, please

*hands Cirdan a big tub of popcorn*

[Rían]

ps - lady M, are you really EG?

[Blackheart]

"Oh, it might hurt my poor female mind? (which majored in computer science and minored in math at uni) And does it makes perfect sense to you? I doubt it."

It might. It gives me a headache. There don't seem to be many people here in the math department that it doesn't. Except Red, and he passed on a couple of years ago. But I have no problems with accepting the implications as they were pointed out to me. You were the one asking for proof. I merely pointed out that it's there if you want it.


"As far as the rest of your rather condescending post, I will at this point cry foul. I will not allow "grandfathering" of assumptions and definitions (which is what you're doing) without making a loud objection."

"Grandfathering"? Oh.. you mean you want to argue over definitions and meanings.

"Your original sentence was "All god [supreme being, azathoth, what have you] ever created was possibility." This was a single, stand-alone sentence using common words, with no indication of the special definitions of those common words that you obviously had in mind at the time. I responded to it in good faith, and now you're trying to grandfather-in definitions and assumptions. Sorry, no go! To illustrate this, I'll make some statements using common words, and ask you to comment on them"

Even better, I'll ask you to point out where you think the definitions suddenly changed from the commonly accepted terms...

Possibility means what? Nothing different than I posited, that (probability) p>0

Pehaps you want to argue semantics about what constitutes a supreme being?

Or perhaps "created"...

"But I wouldn't do that, because I'm interested in discussion, not tricks."

Actually, I'd really like it if you would refrain form being accusatory, and inflammatory, which are two of the oldest rhetorical tricks in the book....

"(I don't know about you in RL, tho - I have a feeling you're a bit different in RL and probably even rather nice )"

No I'm bad.

[Blackheart]

"LOL!! This just cracks me up! You've obviously buffaloed a lot of people into accepting your statements solely based on the manner in which you state them. Sorry, I'm not one of that crowd."

Well that's good. I'd rather people look at the actual meaning. Although I wonder why you think they've been suckered in by my smooth oratory.... Perhaps you just think they're ... naive?

"I disagree with your claim (at least given the meanings that I would attach to your words). But perhaps your meaning of "creation" or "done" is different than mine. If you wish to continue, would you please define what you mean by "creation is over and done with"?"

You disagree that creation is over and done with? That's probably one of the central tennants of creationism.... I find that odd.

I mean those commononly quoted statements such as:

Species or types of organisms are fixed, and do not change over time.

Humanity is the pinnacle of advancement (excepting angels and other spiritual entities)

God created the earth and everything on it in six days, and on the seventh he rested.

I won't even go into ex nihilo which is what I wanted to tie in from the other post... I suppose that will just have to wait until all these grandfathered terms are hashed out....

[Rían]

Originally posted by Blackheart
Even better, I'll ask you to point out where you think the definitions suddenly changed from the commonly accepted terms...

Certainly Here's a few on the common word "observer" :

Originally posted by Blackheart
"Particles count as observers..."The electron acts as an observer"

[Rían]

Originally posted by Blackheart
You disagree that creation is over and done with? That's probably one of the central tennants of creationism.... I find that odd.

Yes, that's odd - and that's why I never said it. Please re-read what I said, esp. the part that I have bolded - I said "I disagree with your claim", not I "disagree that creation is over and done with."

You had said, "That's because I haven't had time to point out the fact that "creationism" is flawed from the viewpoint that it posits that creation is over and done with", and I quoted it and said I disagreed with YOUR claim (as opposed to creationism's claim), which was that it was flawed in that area. Is that clear now?

And the fact that you used the word "fact" in that sentence lead me to believe that you had specialized definitions again, which is why I asked you about it, so as to not waste any of our time talking about a subject that we might have 2 different definitions on.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Blackheart
"Grandfathering"? Oh.. you mean you want to argue over definitions and meanings. ...

No, that's a waste of time.

However, it's also a waste of time for people to talk about a subject while unknowingly having different definitions of some of the vital words involved, so that's why I want to clear this up, esp. given the definitions of the term "observer" that I listed above that you used and that are NOT commonly accepted definitions. If you want to use them, fine, but we need to agree on definitions if there is going to be any meaningful discussion, don't you think? I do.

Actually, I'd really like it if you would refrain form being accusatory, and inflammatory, which are two of the oldest rhetorical tricks in the book....

Then why do you do these very same things? in addition to being really condescending, which is very insulting. I don't think I was being accusatory and inflammatory, but I'll be more careful; will you? I'm always interested in polite, interesting, stimulating, thoughtful discussion, but when people get condescending, like you have, it really irritates me, and I sometimes lose my temper. And if the condescension keeps up, I'll decline to talk with them. People should be treated with respect and courtesy, IMO, and IMO, condescension is one of the worst forms of discourtesy.

'

No I'm bad.

I'm very sorry for you

[Rían]

And on your critique of my use of the word "agent" (numbers added for reference):

by Blackheart
1. "However referring to it as an agent implies action, which is NOT required or specified. "

...

2. "Action is any interaction, from simple observation to collision. Simple (hah) existence is itself an action, because it implies being observed, which is the basic form of interaction... "

The #2 quote seems to nullify your critique of my use of the word "agent" (which is the #1 quote); can you explain this apparent contradiction? Unless you want to say that observers don't have to observe or exist, in which case I decline to continue in the discussion, as it seems rather pointless to me.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan [B]
I don't remember saying you had no other interests.

This was what I was refuting:

Originally posted by Cirdan [B]
...your constant interjection of religion into every thread you post...

You probably didn't really mean "every thread", but since you DID say it, I wanted to refute it, since I consider it a really unfair accusation, and one that really distorts my personality.

EDIT - and considering I have over 5700 posts, coming up with 350+ in a search isn't remarkable, IMO.

"Stubborn" has to be the highest compliment you could pay me.

I'm quite stubborn, too, but I would consider "compassionate" and "loving" to be higher compliments, and I strive towards achieving those, tho sadly I often fail miserably.

"Lump"... this coming from the person who assumes people who find ToE valid to be atheists.

You're quite wrong there about me assuming this. My sister is a Christian and believes evolution is right. That's certainly her choice, as it is mine to believe, independant of my Christian beliefs, that creationism fits the evidence better. Now for the sake of convenience, I don't address theistic evolution, but that doesn't mean I assume all TOE people are atheists.

That is facinating since there is no such theory in formal science. That would be a non-scientific hypothesis similar to Creationism. Please identify a credible source that states that evolutionISM states there is no divine being behind anything. This was never included in any evolution curriclua I have experienced.

In the evolutionists' "bible", TalkOrigins (joke, okay? ) they name natural selection as the "filter" from which changes are either selected or deselected, and they specifically say there is NO intent in that filter. Sorry, I don't have the link, but you could prob. search on "filter" and "natural selection" to find the bit I"m talking about.

I'm not saying that evolution comes right out and says there's no divine being behind things. What I AM saying is that given the statements they DO make, it is an entirely valid deduction, IMO, that there is no divine being behind anything. IOW, I can say "My shirt is completely red." Now did I say anything about blue? No, but it is still an entirely valid deduction to say that therefore, my shirt is not blue. Do you see what I mean?

I think your views on evolution have something to do with your belief in God and the literal reading of the bible.

Not really, or at least no more than YOUR views on evolution have something to do with YOUR beliefs about God and the literal reading of the bible.

Well, the HIV virus mutated to a new species and I think it has been very beneficial for the organism, judging by it's proliferation.

And its not a virus anymore? It has some new characteristics that are not seen in any type of virus? No and No.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but to me, that's not an example. I mean that sincerely and thoughtfully, and again, I could be wrong. But I have to go on what I think is right, wouldn't you say, and not mindlessly accept what other people say.

There are many stages of lung development so I don't see why the avian lung is a particluar problem.

Because of the pass-thru style vs. the in-out style - sorry, I just can't find my reference now, but again, I don't think you would agree (as is your choice) so I won't look it up. I think you and I are at an impasse.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
You probably didn't really mean "every thread", but since you DID say it, I wanted to refute it, since I consider it a really unfair accusation, and one that really distorts my personality.

Yes, I violated the code of "personal attack to avoid the real debate" by using the dreaded "never/always" tense.

EDIT - and considering I have over 5700 posts, coming up with 350+ in a search isn't remarkable, IMO.

No, I couldn't get LESS than 350 (the max allowed by the system) THREADS in which you have made religious comments which is quite an indicatator of a strong predilection. You can deny it but it will sound hollow to anyone who posts with you regularly.

Now for the sake of convenience, I don't address theistic evolution, but that doesn't mean I assume all TOE people are atheists.

Yes, that is quite convenient.

...they name natural selection as the "filter" from which changes are either selected or deselected, and they specifically say there is NO intent in that filter.

I have read this article. This means the process is not guided. This includes microevolution. Blackheart's reference to creation being ended or ongoing relates to this idea. The fact that the failure rate for the process is high (>90% failure rate) indicates a less than purposeful process and certainly makes the idea of a perfect creator constantly "intevening" in the process unlikely. It is possible for a perfect creator to design a system that is self-correcting and adaptable. This would be a grander design than the constant hands-on approach of tinkering and failures.

I'm not saying that evolution comes right out and says there's no divine being behind things.[/clip] Do you see what I mean?

What they are saying is the shirt isn't red, to use your anaolgy correctly. It does not claim to know the color the shirt. The ToE as formally written descibes the mechanism for specieation. PERIOD. While this does intutively contradict the literal interpretation of the biblical creation story it makes no claim as to the origin of LIFE. There is know tenet that excludes the possibility of a divine instigator.

This is the only real stong point of ID, IMO. It seems a bit unlikely that all life is based on one structural concept, namely DNA. Why are there not other forms of life than are based on other molecular structures? The hypothesis of abiogenesis would seem to indicate that either only one form of life is possible or that many forms should be created from similar circumstances repeated over a long period of time.

Not really, or at least no more than YOUR views on evolution have something to do with YOUR beliefs about God and the literal reading of the bible.

Take out the "God and" part and you are right. The literal interpretation of the biblical creation story is a children's story for Sunday school. Any extrapolation of ideas with this as the central thesis is not good science. It is a colored lense used to view all other facts.

And its not a virus anymore? It has some new characteristics that are not seen in any type of virus? No and No.

It need human DNA instead of Chimpanzee DNA. SInce they are specific a different species, and you did mention rapidly reproducing organisms... Oh, that's right! "Type" is a different species unless one is found to mutate from another in which case "type" move up to ...genus? ...class? ...family? This is why I also insist on the corret definition of terms. Substituting "types" in for different levels of speciation for different discussions is very messy.

Because of the pass-thru style vs. the in-out style - sorry, I just can't find my reference now, but again, I don't think you would agree (as is your choice) so I won't look it up. I think you and I are at an impasse.

I'll look it up myself. On the contrary, I think we have made wonderful progress. At least we are getting back on topic, to some degree.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by RÃ*an

Certainly Here's a few on the common word "observer" : [/B]

ob·serv·er ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-zûrvr)
n.

1. One that observes
2. One who keeps any law, custom, regulation, rite, etc.
3. 3. One who fulfills or performs

2 is obviously not what we are discussing, since electrons have no culture. #3 is rather vague, and probably not pertinant.

Therefore we are in all probability discussing 1, which is directly related to:

ob·serve ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-zûrv)
v. ob·served, ob·serv·ing, ob·serves

1. To be or become aware of
2. To make a systematic or scientific observation of
3. To adhere to or abide by
4. To watch or be present without participating actively

Of these number one and number four directly relate. Number 4 especially:

watch ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wch)

1. To act as a spectator; look on

The electron is a spectator because:

spec·ta·tor ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spkttr)
n.

1. An observer of an event.

This however will lead us to a tautology, since frankly language is based on arbitrary symbols. The electron is a spectator, because it is an observer. Nowhere in the definition is it stated that an observer must have sentience, or even actually be alive. You have been observed by video cameras and spy satelites probably since birth...


I prefer however the first definition of observe, however (To be or become aware of)

a·ware ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-wâr)

1. Having knowledge or cognizance

knowl·edge ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nlj)
n.

5. Specific information about something.

In this instanc the electron possesses specific information about the event that it has "observed". (normally an interaction with another particle)

Also, observer is the common scientific term for a particle in this position. Since there is a scientific discussion ongoing, it might be thought disingenious to claim that you were surprised that a common scientific term used in such a context mislead you into thinking that there was chicanery going on...

Especially unfortunate, since the important part of the discussion was never reached, specifically the idea that information has an existence outside the realm of matter (possibly even energy) and that without the existence of this "realm" where the information "resides" it would be impossible for matter or energy as we know it to exist. Which has a direct bearing on the concept of ex nihilo. Unfortunately I have been distracted before I could argue a link between probability collapse on the quantum level and the new theories of cosmology that lend credence to the idea that such things could occur in the macro in the earlier stages of this cycle of universe formation. (That's right it relates directly to an interesting new theory that discredits the big bang theory and is in fact cyclic).

Maybe I'll get around to it eventually...

[Blackheart]

"Yes, that's odd - and that's why I never said it. Please re-read what I said, esp. the part that I have bolded - I said "I disagree with your claim", not I "disagree that creation is over and done with."

Well this is what you have
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Blackheart
That's because I haven't had time to point out the fact that "creationism" is flawed from the viewpoint that it posits that creation is over and done with.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...delete buffalo and other livestock...

I disagree with your claim (at least given the meanings that I would attach to your words). But perhaps your meaning of "creation" or "done" is different than mine. If you wish to continue, would you please define what you mean by "creation is over and done with"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Too bad I haven't yet gotten around to presenting my claim in an ordered form. But that is indeed what I'm working towards, creation is not over and done with, is ongoing, and cyclic.

You are getting rather cryptic then. The only interpretation I can wrangle out of this is that you disagree with the claim I am making that creationism posits that creation is finished.

"You had said, "That's because I haven't had time to point out the fact that "creationism" is flawed from the viewpoint that it posits that creation is over and done with", and I quoted it and said I disagreed with YOUR claim (as opposed to creationism's claim), which was that it was flawed in that area. Is that clear now?"

Not in the slightest. You haven't yet pointed out that creationism does not contain within it the idea that creation has stopped, at least in the material sense. You are either claiming that creationism does not contain this precept, or perhaps that I am wrong in my claim, which I haven't yet had a chance to present. Since I haven't yet had a chance to put it forward in a cogent form, I doubt that that is the case, unless you've just jumped the gun.

"And the fact that you used the word "fact" in that sentence lead me to believe that you had specialized definitions again, which is why I asked you about it, so as to not waste any of our time talking about a subject that we might have 2 different definitions on."

fact ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fkt)
n.
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact

2. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed.

3. A real occurrence; an event

In my expereince, the idea that creation is ongoing is a demonstratable fact, in that it is a real occurance or event, based on our knowledge and information based on real occurances.

There's no hidden metaphysical hook in there. We already decided that we're going to have to accept that our subjective realities mirror in some shape form or fashion an objective reality.

[Blackheart]

"The #2 quote seems to nullify your critique of my use of the word "agent" (which is the #1 quote); can you explain this apparent contradiction? Unless you want to say that observers don't have to observe or exist, in which case I decline to continue in the discussion, as it seems rather pointless to me."

Then you may decline to continue the conversation, since that is exactly the point. It is not however pointless, but the exact crux of the matter. The very paradox I'm pointing at. That damned cat in the damned box.

Why do you think the very idea of existence itself is so damned complicated?

An observer, either in the broader sense of a entity or the commonly used scientific term used to describe one half of a quantum interaction (which appears to be arbitrary) does not have to observe. If it does not observe, that does not remove the possibility (which you could term potential, if it makes you feel better about your grandfather) that it may observe at some point in the future.

However the way that quantum structures (and now especially string/superstring structures) are thought (through headache inspiring math) to work there is no real difference in past and future, other than what has been observed and what has not been observed! SO from the other perspective (remember it's arbitrary which viewpoint is chosen), the observer does not exist! And this is at exactly the same "time" (present- the ongoing collapse of probability) that we consider the observer to be making a decision about whether ot not to observe a phenomenon!

Sound weird? it is, and I haven't even gotten to quantum isolation, or "depolarization". Basically what we're looking at is an entirely new direction (as in dimension), and a new understanding of what "existence" actually implies. And yes, this ties in rather directly with the cosmilogical theory I was trying to get around to...

[Blackheart]

-snicker snack goes the vorpal blade-

"Blackheart's reference to creation being ended or ongoing relates to this idea."

Err.. no. Actually it doesn't. I was coming from a completely different angle. Creationism deals with much more than just speciation and living organisms. There's that whole cosmilogical approach.

We really don't want to start with my views of gentic algorythyms and filters, the idea that evolution is undirected (absolutely preposterous!) or without intent (impossible to prove or disprove and therefore not scientific) or unguided (again difficult to prove or disprove), and the idea of a niche or species "space" related to conservation of energy/form and entropy. Didn't we do that already? I really seem to remember talking about it...

No we don't want to go there...

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Blackheart
-snicker snack goes the vorpal blade-

"Blackheart's reference to creation being ended or ongoing relates to this idea."

Err.. no. Actually it doesn't. I was coming from a completely different angle. Creationism deals with much more than just speciation and living organisms. There's that whole cosmilogical approach.

It does apply in the limited sense in which I was using it. It is a logical conclusion that creation/re-creation of the universe/universes neccesarily includes all components of said systems.

Again, I think that while it is impossible to rule out guided speciation the probablility is extremely low given the failure rate and the ratio of non-beneficial mutations. I do remember our discussion of possible mechanisms for guided speciation and entropy/(anti-entropy?) so there's no need to recapitulate.

[Blackheart]

Oh ah. Well my reference wasn't directed at that specifically. Though you could come at it from the angle you're talking about also.

I just get tired of talking about evolution all the time. I wanted to hammer on the nut from the other side.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Yes, I violated the code of "personal attack to avoid the real debate" by using the dreaded "never/always" tense.

Oh come now, I imagine you'd defend yourself if the tables were turned.

No, I couldn't get LESS than 350 (the max allowed by the system) THREADS in which you have made religious comments which is quite an indicatator of a strong predilection. You can deny it but it will sound hollow to anyone who posts with you regularly.

I did the search, Cirdan, with the words that you put in your post that you searched for (god OR christian OR faith), and when I searched for threads, I got ... 20 different threads which I made a comment with one of those words, which sounds about right to me. When I searched for posts, I got ... 116.