Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Rían]

Originally posted by Blackheart
Yes. What you think of as "physical" matter is merely a universal construct created by your brain to explain the negative repulsion of frezons...

And why should I accept your opinion? Do you have supporting evidence?

It does not have "existence" whatsoever without an observer.

Unless you wish to argue that everything is an illusion (in which case I'll leave you happily alone) then it's logically necessary that SOMETHING must be self-existent, whether it's God or the mass of something that supposedly the universe came from. God would quality as an observer; the mass of something wouldn't, so can I conclude that if there's no God then there is no matter?

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.

If by your previous statement, "All god [supreme being, azathoth, what have you] ever created was possibility.", you count "god [supreme being, azathoth, what have you]" as an observer, then I can agree with you.

I did NOT imply action at all; you're wrong there. You can call my "agent" your "observer", if you would like to. No difference to me.

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.

You seemed to be saying that ALL that existed was "possibility". If that's so, then I disagree - I considered that faulty thinking and explained why. If that's NOT so, then I misunderstood your brief sentence. But now with your "observer" addition, as I said above, I can agree with you.

[Blackheart]

"Are you suggesting reality as a subjective construct?"

I think we already had this discussion. But no, I mean beyond the normal sense that we constantly construct reality in our heads. An "objective" construct is what I am refering to,

"I think I see that within the human consciousness, but there must be word that describes actuality without consciousness."

Kant had a phrase for it, which you are probably familair with.... I prefer the term "possibility". However conciousness is a rather fuzzy term in and of itself....

You'll have to go look up Wheeler's later work, but basically, until something is interacted with in some form, it remains a vague fuzzy cloud of possibility.

"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."

Correct. Particles count as observers, and multiple observations are possible. It is in fact necessary, because any interaction can be viewed from at least two vantage points (if not more- vastly more) possibility and observer are in fact interchangeable mathmatically, and probably conceptually.

[BeardofPants]

As interesting as it can be for a discussion on hermeneutics (existentialist methodologies, etc) and Immanuel Kant, I don't think it's quite in line with 'evidence for creationism'.

And if this goddamned internet connection drops one more, I'm going to bite somebody's head off. *goes off to unplug the airport cord YET AGAIN*

[Blackheart]

"And why should I accept your opinion? Do you have supporting evidence? "

Tain't my opinion. It's the opinion of a good many theoretical astrophysicists and quantum physicists. I only wish I could claim it was my original opinion. But If you are asking if I am "of that opinion", then yes.

I could offer you evidence, but it would look a lot like long strings of incomprehensible numbers to you. If you are really serious about wanting evidence, I would refer you to some of John Wheeler's later work, and others. I can even jog downstairs to the rference department and ask for the relevant journal articles if you want.


"Unless you wish to argue that everything is an illusion (in which case I'll leave you happily alone) then it's logically necessary that SOMETHING must be self-existent, whether it's God or the mass of something that supposedly the universe came from. God would quality as an observer; the mass of something wouldn't, so can I conclude that if there's no God then there is no matter?"

Tangental. No, for illusion to exist there must be an observer capable of perception that can be "fooled". The fact that you can be fooled is in fact proof that something exists, which is the hole in solophism. However you're hounding off down the wrong metaphysical track here....

I think you misunderstand the concept of "possibility" as a conceptual construct. What makes you think that existance is a steady state? "Are you absolutely sure that the light goes off when you close the refrigerator door" is about the strongest hint I'll give you here.

Matter isn't at all what I'm talking 'bout. Think fifth dimensional construct intruding into a four dimensional space. Do the parts of the 5D construct "exist" if for some reason they don't happen to be concurrent with the 4D "space"? It depends VERY heavily on the observer viewpoint, not to mention that the fact that an "observer" exists adds an extra N to the entire construct...


"If by your previous statement, "All god [supreme being, azathoth, what have you] ever created was possibility.", you count "god [supreme being, azathoth, what have you]" as an observer, then I can agree with you."

They are not neccesarily the same thing, and it is in fact possible (but unweildy, to say the least) to posit a prime mover that does not act as an observer. But that's probably beyond the scope of this discussion.


"I did NOT imply action at all; you're wrong there. You can call my "agent" your "observer", if you would like to. No difference to me."

This is unclear to me. 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... You may not have known you were implying it, but you certainly couldn't avoid doing so....

"You seemed to be saying that ALL that existed was "possibility". If that's so, then I disagree - "

That is, with one small change, what I said. The small change is that it applies to the present tense as well. It in FACT might help you to understand if you move your thinking one step further, and apply the statement to the future, since humans are used to thinking of the FUTURE as the realm of possibility. However there is no real discernable difference between past/future/present EXCEPT observer position... maybe that makes it clearer for you...

"I considered that faulty thinking and explained why. If that's NOT so, then I misunderstood your brief sentence."

I think we can probably say that I would have been more than surprised if more than one or two people had actually understood it. I'm just plain mean that way...

An observer is merely (or grandly, if you prefer) the point of interaction for information transfer during the interaction of at least one instance of possibility. Which is, as I pointed out to Cirdan, usually more than one, since in most instances the observer also counts as an instance of possibility. (Self observation is the only single instance interaction I can concieve of- and bears at least tangentally on consiousness->).

It (the observer) could be a conscious entity, however that is not absolutely necessary- for various reasons not the least of which the fuzziness of the word conciousness....

For instance, sending out an electron to "probe" an atom has a measurable effect. It would be odd to assume that the effect only appears magically when some lab worker checks a dial. The electron acts as an observer. It also measurably affects the observed object. And vice versa. It's just as correct to say that the electron was observed by the atom, and was measurably changed.

[Blackheart]

"As interesting as it can be for a discussion on hermeneutics (existentialist methodologies, etc) and Immanuel Kant, I don't think it's quite in line with 'evidence for creationism'."

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.

When in fact that's a rather strange viewpoint for a number of reasons. I'm refering to cosmilogical creation, though the idea that earth exists independant of the cosmos is also rather silly.

[Lady Magpie]

Originally posted by RÃ*an

Unless you wish to argue that everything is an illusion (in which case I'll leave you happily alone) then it's logically necessary that SOMETHING must be self-existent, whether it's God or the mass of something that supposedly the universe came from.

Actually, that's not a logical necessity. It is, however, for some people a comfort necessity. And one could very well and easily argue that what we percieve as reality is in fact an illusion. Because really, how do you know what you percieve is actually self-existent and not just your mind? You really have no way of knowing. Most people tend to be more comfortable with the belief that the world is not in fact an illusion, simply because the other alternative is too terrifying, but really there is no way we can know.

[Blackheart]

See the post above about the hole in solophism...

Illusion is a form of existence, because it predicates an observer.

However I was refering to an objective construct... and a non-metaphysical one at that...

[Insidious Rex]

Perhaps but in a perfect illusion the observer would always be a complete unknown wouldnt it.

[Blackheart]

Nooo....

an illusion would have no impact on anything but the interpretation of the perception.

The perception itself would be fundamentally the same- possibility detected by observer=perception (or collapse of wave function)

Illusion is a higher function than basic reality, because interpretation is going on, which implies some kind of basic cognitive function, which is a subjective construction.

possibility>observer>interpretation>universe construct

Why are you guys are all pointing at the other end of the elephant?

[Insidious Rex]

probably because its the end thats easiest to see. for the same reason ships have trouble with ice bergs.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
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.

i don't see how the existance of a mental function (i.e. morals) can in any way prove or disprove the existance of a physical thing (i.e. heaven/hell)

btw, i thought we already covered my morals... they're relative and fairly 'good' most of the time for a non-believer

[Rían]

(a rather late response, but RL has been v. busy... end of school year stuff...)

Originally posted by Blackheart
Tain't my opinion. It's the opinion of a good many theoretical astrophysicists and quantum physicists. I only wish I could claim it was my original opinion. But If you are asking if I am "of that opinion", then yes.

I can't recall anyone thinking a question like "And why should I accept your opinion?" means "Is this your own original thought?", but hey, not to worry - I didn't think it was an opinion that YOU, personally, had come up with, anyway. I figured it was something you were just repeating because you believed it to be true. And it looks like I was right, as you yourself confirmed.

I could offer you evidence, but it would look a lot like long strings of incomprehensible numbers to you. ....

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.

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.

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 -

1. The 75 is better than the 74.
2. The frog is green.
3. Gain is important.
4. Let's go to the bar!

Now since YOU know I'm using common words with dual meanings, you might be able to find the more obscure meanings of those words on the internet. But if I just made those statements in the same manner that YOU made YOUR initial statement, I can pretty much guarantee that you'd not have a clue as to their context. But I wouldn't do that, because I'm interested in discussion, not tricks. So if you'd really like to discuss this subject, why don't you start a new thread (since as BOP noted, it's really rather off-topic here) and lay out your context, definitions and assumptions right up front But I doubt that you'll do that, because your on-line persona doesn't exactly seem to like fairness (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 )

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
(a rather late response, but RL has been v. busy... end of school year stuff...)


But I doubt if you'll do that, because your on-line persona doesn't exactly seem to like fairness (don't know about you in RL, tho - I have a feeling you're a bit different in RL and probably even rather nice ) [/B]

HAHAHAHAHAHA! *wipes away a tear* "Nice". Yes Rian, Blacksy-wacksy is a nice little ickle orksie-worksie.

[Rían]

well, I always like to hope for the best ...

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i don't see how the existance of a mental function (i.e. morals) can in any way prove or disprove the existance of a physical thing (i.e. heaven/hell)

I don't claim that they can be "proved" - those types of things can't be "proved" in the sense that we would like them to be, IMO. They fall into the category of "things that can't be seen but whose existence can be strongly inferred from the following: [insert list]". But that's for another thread - the one I keep threatening to open but haven't had time for yet.

[Rían]

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.

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.

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"?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lady Magpie
Actually, that's not a logical necessity. It is, however, for some people a comfort necessity. And one could very well and easily argue that what we percieve as reality is in fact an illusion. Because really, how do you know what you percieve is actually self-existent and not just your mind? You really have no way of knowing. Most people tend to be more comfortable with the belief that the world is not in fact an illusion, simply because the other alternative is too terrifying, but really there is no way we can know.

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.

[Lizra]

Man! I'm getting some popcorn! Hold on now!

[Rían]

Pass me the Milk Duds, wouldja? (but I have to leave in just a few minutes to help run the used clothing sale at school)

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
No, it's some size issues, but don't bother searching, you won't agree anyway.

Oh, I couldn't resist. Your "debate" was with IR and amounted to unsupported contradiction as in, "It's a problem with size but you won't agree anyway".

This will help explain why size doesn't matter (in evolution). The variation in size within known species is not revelant to the difference in total genetic pattern. Gigantism is a phenomenon found in isolated populations. Also, not all whales are huge. The Beluga whale only grow to about 16 feet.

It's a very accurate observation, IMO, and no one else in this discussion reacts as defensively as you do, IMO,...

Look in the mirror, dear. IMO, you count your opinion to be some sort of fact, IMO.

Go ahead and make that observation, which I will immediately prove wrong by referring you to my MANY posts on the Silmarillion,...

I don't remember saying you had no other interests. There are also many other Christians on this board. You are by far the most vocal about this subject. I tried to count the threads in which you mention "god", "christian", or "faith" but the search kept max'ing out at 350. I'm glad you have other interests because you might be considered mentally unbalanced in you only thought about religion. "Can't cook dinner because I'm thinking about Christ". I found your discussion with IR that was during a period I was ignoring this thread. Apparently he picked up on your denial as well. I will continue to be skeptical about your objectivity in this topic.

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.

"Stubborn" has to be the highest compliment you could pay me. "Lump"... this coming from the person who assumes people who find ToE valid to be atheists. LOL!! I've been saying all along that there is a wide range of people with a diffferent range of views. You have previously stated that your tendency is toward "Young Earth Creationism" so I have addressed my comments towards this particular set of beliefs in discussions with you.

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.

How do you know that I won't enter another plane of existence where actions still have immediate or eventual consequences? I don't believe that I face any sort of "consequences for all eternity" either. I believe more in karma and dharma than in post-mortem punishments.

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.

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.

One more time - my belief in God has nothing to do with evolution.

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

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

I think to swing over to thinking that the evidence supports evolutionism more....[/clip] and if I saw some really good observable evidence of changes along the lines of definite, substantial and sustainable beneficial changes...[/quote][/b]
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.

Another area would be a discovery of some type of in-between lung.

There are many stages of lung development so I don't see why the avian lung is a particluar problem. Avian bone structures have shown continuity with raptors. Avian/Dinosaur evolution At least now we are back on topic.

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

"Could" or "do" take a long time? I don't want a semantic problem here. By what naturalistic means could the processes I mentioned occur very fast (geologically speaking...)? Again I have been operating on you're previous statement as being an adherent of YEC.