Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Cirdan]

Ahhh, yes those slimy tentacles. Those were the days, destroying planets, eating human flesh. What happened to us, BH?


At the initial moment there must be two possibilities between which lies the apparent averaged reality. The chaotic element of that initial unknown permeates every causal chain from that instant, thus preserving its momentum thoughout the time-space of all probable instances. The end moment conseals the balancing of the equation of all causality to it's neutral state where it began. We dangle in the web maze between, inifinitely separated from those nodes, seeing only the web before us.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Blackheart
I think you should all run out and study quantum physics this instant.

Oi vey. Now someone else is going to have a existential breakdown.

I wonder if I'll ever be around to see it start to impinge on other areas of study other than fleetingly. Damned slow academia.

[Lady Magpie]

I think you should all run out and study quantum physics this instant.

I like the way you think. Yes. Quantum is cool. Not that I've really studied it, but I like listening to my physics major friend talk about it.

Cirdan--two possibilities? I'd say even the beginning holds more than that. But yes.

[Blackheart]

"Ahhh, yes those slimy tentacles. Those were the days, destroying planets, eating human flesh. What happened to us, BH?"

Well it's kinda tuff, being dead and dreaming and stuck in some fishy smelling sunken city and all. Damned stars just won't line up correctly.

However, considering the idea that you (seem) to be positing a reality constructed of slices between the actual collapse points, it would therefore follow that reality is more plastic than normally assumed.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lady Magpie
Cirdan--two possibilities? I'd say even the beginning holds more than that. But yes.

Well, it is a spin off the quantum aspect of he position of averaged reality is actually either/or but not average.

In the external time frame and initial event could initiate an infinite set of casual universal realities. I was only focused on our particular version.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Blackheart
Well it's kinda tuff, being dead and dreaming and stuck in some fishy smelling sunken city and all. Damned stars just won't line up correctly.

However, considering the idea that you (seem) to be positing a reality constructed of slices between the actual collapse points, it would therefore follow that reality is more plastic than normally assumed.

My flesh have been revenated since last we raged. If the stars won't line up you must move to a position where they will.

I assume that there is some number of accumulated constants that limit plasticity, but that it is a nearly zero sum event. The event would probably carry enough impetus to reinitiate.

[Blackheart]

The question then remains, how much is plasticity affected by observation then?

Obviously there are limits, primarily the "initial" constraints, to paraphrase you. but probably other limits also.... lets call them "universal laws" or "constants".

Amongst those parameters, is the plasticity of reality significantly affected by observer bias?

(of course you already know I think it is)

[Rían]

Sorry for the late response - I've been out of town, then battling spyware.

Originally posted by Cirdan
Well, we gave examples of species like the whale that show a progression through the fossil record of a land mammal with a very unique bone structure that exists through several transitional species until it was completely adapted to a marine envoronment. Fossils are observable. This cannot be explained by any aspect of creationism.

The whale *sigh* - I won't revisit the problems with the whale fossils - suffice to say there ARE some major problems, IMO.

The faulty logic is that it is possible to prove something "might" happen. Einstein proved mathematically that gravity deforms space, but the effect was not actually "observed" as starlight bending around the sun.

Perhaps this is just a wording problem, but Einstein didn't mathematically prove gravity deforming space "might" happen - he mathematically proved it "should" happen if all his calcs were right - that's a huge difference.

You've never seen me at all. It seems you are projecting your own fears about a world where all the answers are for in one book' where the simple confort of simple ideas can be replaced by immense complexity and unresolved issues. Of course we could spend days on ad hominem attacks and accomplish nothing.

Yes, I've never "seen" you, but I thought using that word in that context was v. understandable. Perhaps I need to be more accurate, but I doubt it - I think you knew quite well what I meant.

And Christianity is neither simple nor comfortable in all areas. And to repeat for the seemingly billionth time, I have no fears of being wrong - if I'm wrong, then I'll just go "poof" and disappear when I die and I'll never even know it. Again, however, if YOU'RE wrong, you will NOT go "poof" and quietly disappear when you die - you will be dealing for all eternity with the consequences of your choices here on earth (as will I).

When one goes to the Smithsonian Museum the displays of roman historical objects are not far from the displays of homid fossils, early tools, etc. Creationism has as many of these pieces of evidence as the Donald Duck theory. You sought to equivocate based on "observable" but you turn your back on the overwhelming physical evidence. Have you found a way to fix that whole increasing complexity, geologic age, no human fossils in all but the top most sedimentary layers? Were the humans better swimmers than the marine dinosaurs? The physical evidence is "observable" and you are feel to try to give some credible alternative to ToE to explain it, but so far you have not done so, and yes, I've read ALL your posts.

We've been thru this so I won't repeat

I can show it takes millions of years for mountains to erode and that it can't happen overnight. I can prove that the chalk cliffs of Dover, made up of calcareous plankton skeletal material, only accumulate to such depths over extremely long periods of time - by observable processes to boot! He's dead wrong. Some processes require long periods of time.

Yes, some require long periods of time - but they are also feasible, unlike macro evolution.

Just show me some facts.

I did, but apparently you disagree That's your choice.

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
did the 'creator' create hell from the pov of creationists?

Any comment on my answer, Brownie? (or did I miss it while I was gone?)

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
... But when evolution pops the creationists bubble it changes a lot of things for a lot of hard core christians.

Not me Please treat me as an individual, with my own opinions. Don't lump me into a group and assign me the group's opinions - you'll be wrong in some cases.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Blackheart
Oh by the way. I'm going to eat you all for dinner.

Sorry, I'm taken

All god [supreme being, azathoth, what have you] ever created was possibility.

Do you mean God didn't create any physical matter whatsoever? I don't see how there can be possibility without an agent to achieve it. I think you're not really posing a discussion point, anyway - I think you're just having fun but I'll still point out the faulty thinking.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Now I understand the "afraid" comment. I thought you were accusing me of loving the ToE so much I was personal for me which I found humorous. Now I find That you think I fear that the alternative is eternal damnation of some sort. I think this explains why we offend one another, intentionally or not. Despite you protestations to the contrary, you view the ToE as disproval of god, and reflexively, that creationism (which seems to amount to nothing more than an attempted refutation of ToE) affirms the god centered universe. I do not operate under the same paradigm.

I repeat yet again - (oh rats! It's too far back on the thread) - well, I'll just reword it - my opinion on whether or not evolution is true has nothing to do with my belief in God - my belief in God is based on other things.

I view the existence of god and the proof of the ToE to be comepletely independent of one another.

So do I.

I've never ruled out the possible existence of god. I've never ruled out the possibility that the ToE could be proven wrong. No one has provided sufficient evidence that there is a more logical conclusion, however.

Good! (sentence 1).
Good! (sentence 2)
Your opinion; mine differs, also based on my evaluation of the evidence (sentence 3).

So when I disparage the ToC you seem to take it as an offense to your religious beliefs, which is not my intent.

No, I don't take it as an offence to my religious beliefs. I'm just rather shy and any really firm tone often kinda scares me

It is merely my less than sensitive evaluation of the unscientific nature of it.

I'm sorry I've been over-sensitive. But I still feel that you have some fear over the issue, mainly based on some of my points that you have fought over that seem incredibly obviously true - it seems that you fight merely because a creationists said it. But 'nuff said for now.

I stand by my position that god may well exist and that has nothing to do with ToE, which describes a mechanism for change.

And I'll stand by MY position that God does exist, and the ToE seems to be less supported by the evidence than creationism, and the two have nothing to do with each other

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Any comment on my answer, Brownie? (or did I miss it while I was gone?)

i can't respond to your answer and stay anywhere near on topic... since we are talking about science however, is there any evidence for the existance of hell and/or heaven?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Sorry for the late response - I've been out of town, then battling spyware.

Many of my clients have the same probelm. I think they should just be called viruses.

The whale *sigh* - I won't revisit the problems with the whale fossils - suffice to say there ARE some major problems, IMO.

Fine., I'll search for your post but all I remember is something about "but nobody observed them and all you have are bones" or something to that effect.

And stop sighing, woman. It's seems like you're trying to be condesending but it's just sort of a silly affectation in debates.

Perhaps this is just a wording problem, but Einstein didn't mathematically prove gravity deforming space "might" happen - he mathematically proved it "should" happen if all his calcs were right - that's a huge difference.

LOL!
Okay.... Paleontologists have scientifically proved that evolution '"should" have happened if' the analysis of the fossils are "right". Nice semantics.

I think you knew quite well what I meant.

Yes, and you know quite well what I meant. You know very little about me and are in no position to analyze me. It is just a tactic to distract from the point at hand. I could make the oservation that you are obsessed with religion based on you choice of reading material (C. S. Lewis, Chesterton, etc) and your constant interjection of religion into every thread you post. I would guess that your entire psyche is centered on Christianity and admitting evolution was possible and the most logical scientific explaination to date would cause such cognitive disonance in your mind that you would have a nervous breakdown. Your repeated denial that proving evolution were true is unrelated to your faith is a compartmentalization of your denial. By your own logic you said I would go to hell if evolution were proved to be false when it is quite possible that there are still other explainations just as testable as the mythical creation story. But you don't see that. You believe that disproving evolution IS the proof of God, with is the logical failing of Creationism. It isn't an either/or situation. Now if you would like to continue this net psychoanalysis, fine, otherwise, "just the facts, maam."

And Christianity is neither simple nor comfortable in all areas. And to repeat for the seemingly billionth time, I have no fears of being wrong - if I'm wrong, then I'll just go "poof" and disappear when I die and I'll never even know it. Again, however, if YOU'RE wrong, you will NOT go "poof" and quietly disappear when you die - you will be dealing for all eternity with the consequences of your choices here on earth (as will I).

More proof you are locked in a logical paradigm that you can't see beyond. And don't bother to teach me about christianity. I find your version unattractive. I like my rector and her views are more in line with mine. Remember Pat Benetar? "Hell is for children"

We've been thru this so I won't repeat

Why bother to quote my entire paragraph and then give this kind of response? Still no *good* answer, I guess.

Yes, some require long periods of time - but they are also feasible, unlike macro evolution.

Oh, that's right. Because you say so. It's quite feasable whether or not you believe it or it is a theory and not a fact. So, not open minded at all, then? How could you change your mind if facts "proved" ToE if you think it's not "feasable"? LIke the old adage, "I'll see it when I believe it". At least you've finally admitted to the "long periods of time" aspect of the earth.

I did, but apparently you disagree That's your choice.

The only fact you have presented is that you don't believe that ToE is possible. Everything else was a shop worn chestnut from the creationists big book of fairy tales. Not on idea in your presentation of "facts" was represented by physical evidence or observation as to whether "Creation" happened. That's what we have been waiting for throughout this thread.

Just say this once out loud.

"I believe god created the earth and all the creatures on it as they are today. This belief is not based on facts but solely on my faith as a devout orthadox christian. There is no scientific evidence to support my belief but my faith is strong enough that I don't need a naturalistic explanation."

You will feel much better.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I'm sorry I've been over-sensitive. But I still feel that you have some fear over the issue, mainly based on some of my points that you have fought over that seem incredibly obviously true - it seems that you fight merely because a creationists said it. But 'nuff said for now.

Not quite enough. I have many fears. I've considered the possibility of going to hell. I have no fear of it because I don't believe it. Plus I don't believe that if there is a god he want abject blind faith from me, so doubt doesn't even get me in the vicinity of hell. Hell is way way way down on my list of fears. Somewhere well below stepping on someting sticky while barefooted in the kitchen. I fight only because creationsts seek to pollute the public educational system with more nonsense that already exists there.

I take my son to church to learn morals and spirituaity and send him to school to learn the facts he will need to function. I'd rather he learn Latin than creationism.

[Blackheart]

"Do you mean God didn't create any physical matter whatsoever?"

Yes. What you think of as "physical" matter is merely a universal construct created by your brain to explain the negative repulsion of frezons... It does not have "existence" whatsoever without an observer.

"I don't see how there can be possibility without an agent to achieve it."

Observer necessity is built into the universe. Without an observer point, all the math built around our understanding of physics would collapse and become meaningless. However referring to it as an agent implies action, which is NOT required or specified. All that "existence" requires is possibility and an observer. When those two "interact" then "reality" is the result.

"I think you're not really posing a discussion point, anyway - I think you're just having fun but I'll still point out the faulty thinking."

More's the pity, I don't think you grasped the relevance of the statement(s). As for pointing out the faulty thinking, I'm sort of waiting for that to happen.... You posited the possibility of faulty thinking, but I have yet to observe it, therefore I am led to the conclusion that this "faulty thinking" has no existence.

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i can't respond to your answer and stay anywhere near on topic... since we are talking about science however, is there any evidence for the existance of hell and/or heaven?

Not strictly measureable in a lab type evidence, IMO. But VERY observable in the sense of one can observe all over the world that people have a sense of morality (in the sense of some things are "right" and some are "wrong") and the morality is strikingly similar at the roots (you can never lie, vs. you can lie to an enemy, but ALL agree that truth is good). But that's something I'd like to get into on another thread one day and really question the atheists on the source of their morals.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Blackheart
Observer necessity is built into the universe. Without an observer point, all the math built around our understanding of physics would collapse and become meaningless. However referring to it as an agent implies action, which is NOT required or specified. All that "existence" requires is possibility and an observer. When those two "interact" then "reality" is the result.

Are you suggesting reality as a subjective construct? I think I see that within the human consciousness, but there must be word that describes actuality without consciousness. And by "observer point" you imply this as a minimum requirement, correct? Even that observer point must be subject to relative position of other constructs of which is a part and so must have it's own observation point.

I have not observed faulty thinking in your metaphysical prose but I do detect a tiny bit of something else... possibly bemusement.

*reminds self to re-educate self on QP*

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Many of my clients have the same probelm. I think they should just be called viruses.

*grumbles 'those virus makers need to get a real life!' *

Fine., I'll search for your post but all I remember is something about "but nobody observed them and all you have are bones" or something to that effect.

No, it's some size issues, but don't bother searching, you won't agree anyway

And stop sighing, woman.

I'll stop sighing when I want to stop sighing, man

It's seems like you're trying to be condesending but it's just sort of a silly affectation in debates.

I'm not at ALL trying to be condescending. I hope you believe that. I can see how it might be taken that way, tho, so I'll be more careful how and where I use it. The sigh was one of weariness, because you and I just seem to get nowhere on this subject.

LOL!
Okay.... Paleontologists have scientifically proved that evolution '"should" have happened if' the analysis of the fossils are "right". Nice semantics.

Words are important. I don't play games with semantics. To me, your Einstein example is not appropriate, and I explained why.

Yes, and you know quite well what I meant. You know very little about me and are in no position to analyze me. It is just a tactic to distract from the point at hand.

No, it's not a tactic to distract from the point at hand. It's a very accurate observation, IMO, and no one else in this discussion reacts as defensively as you do, IMO, which to me indicates some big-time defensiveness on your part. I may be wrong, but I may analyze you if I so desire, based on the many posts that I've read.

I could make the oservation that you are obsessed with religion based on you choice of reading material (C. S. Lewis, Chesterton, etc) and your constant interjection of religion into every thread you post.

Go ahead and make that observation, which I will immediately prove wrong by referring you to my MANY posts on the Silmarillion, HoME books, LOTR books and movies, and topics such as the hilarious show "The Iron Chef" where I do NOT make mention of God or religion AT ALL. (why should I?) And I am currently reading Andrew Lang's fairy tale collection to the kiddos, and before that finished E. Nesbit's "The Last of the Dragons", and before that, Kiplings "Just So Stories" (absolutely hilarious!), and I'm currently reading Don Quixote and The Brothers Karamazov for myself. I also love the works of Dickens and can quote passages from Jane Austin. Wilkie Collins' "The Woman in White" and "The Moonstone" are wonderful (I would love to have a servant like Betteredge). Just to name a few of the many "non-religious" books I've read.

I would guess that your entire psyche is centered on Christianity and admitting evolution was possible and the most logical scientific explaination to date would cause such cognitive disonance in your mind that you would have a nervous breakdown.

LOL! I guess you just choose to not believe me. That's your choice, tho it's a wrong one.

Your repeated denial that proving evolution were true is unrelated to your faith is a compartmentalization of your denial.

No, it's trying to get a v. stubborn person (you ) to believe the truth. Other people seem to be able to believe me, but you just seem to lump ALL creationists into the same category without even thinking about it.

By your own logic you said I would go to hell if evolution were proved to be false ...

I don't believe I said that; I believe I said something like you would have to face the consequences of your choices for all eternity, which could be quite different.

...when it is quite possible that there are still other explainations just as testable as the mythical creation story. But you don't see that.

No, you just don't listen to me. I've said repeatedly that the model of evolutionISM that I am dealing with is the one that says there is no divine being behind anything.

You believe that disproving evolution IS the proof of God, with is the logical failing of Creationism.

One more time - my belief in God has nothing to do with evolution. It's based more on the things like I said to brownie about the universal existence of morality, which has nothing to do with evolution.

It isn't an either/or situation.

I quite agree. Do you hear me? I've said it many times before. I quite agree.

How could you change your mind if facts "proved" ToE if you think it's not "feasable"?

Here's an example of what I would look for:

I think to swing over to thinking that the evidence supports evolutionism more, I would have to see several things which I currently don't see. Mainly, I would have to see some form of change in organisms that does not appear to be firmly bounded. There are organisms with very short lifecycles where you can get many, many generations, and if I saw some really good observable evidence of changes along the lines of definite, substantial and sustainable beneficial changes, I would give a lot more points to evolutionism.

Another area would be a discovery of some type of in-between lung. I really have a problem with birds, especially, and the whole idea of how their lungs and bones are different, and how in the world could a lung type change to an avian-type lung while still working thru all its supposed tiny little changes.

That's 2 big areas for me.

LIke the old adage, "I'll see it when I believe it". At least you've finally admitted to the "long periods of time" aspect of the earth.

I've "admitted" that some proposed processes could take a long time, yes. Not quite sure what you mean by that.

The only fact you have presented is that you don't believe that ToE is possible. Everything else was a shop worn chestnut from the creationists big book of fairy tales. Not on idea in your presentation of "facts" was represented by physical evidence or observation as to whether "Creation" happened. That's what we have been waiting for throughout this thread.

It's your choice to ignore the data

Just say this once out loud.

"I believe god created the earth and all the creatures on it as they are today. This belief is not based on facts but solely on my faith as a devout orthadox christian. There is no scientific evidence to support my belief but my faith is strong enough that I don't need a naturalistic explanation."

I don't want to say that; it would be a lie. I don't like to lie.

You will feel much better.

I don't "feel much better" when I lie, so I won't say that.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
... Plus I don't believe that if there is a god he want abject blind faith from me ...

I totally and enthusiastically agree with you.