Creation & Evolution

[Revelation 22:21]

The bible has many things that can be taken literally for figuritivly.
Sometimes the bible seems perfectly literal until you get to a verse that is extremely figuritive- then you must wonder if other parts are written figuritivly (ugg forgive spelling of figuritivly). Six days-- maybe the world was created in 6 parts-- that were like days-- but were not actually literal 24 hr days. Think about it-- the bible gives 6 periods- in which different things were created (or evolved- i don't really care). Go all the way back to the beginning-- God created one thing- then on the second day (period of time) it evolved into something else- then on the next day (period of time) a new type of creature evolves from the past ones. A day dosn't have to be one 24 hr day. We made the calanders after we were here- time wasn't really a barrier for God. I know the bible tells how god made the day and night yatta yatta- but still- god didn't make the calanders-- he just gave us something so base our calanders on. Time didn't really matter for god.
One more thing-- maybe things evolved for billions of years--- then God condensed it into 6 days. - Its hard to understand this-- but I think its possible. I'll try to make it simple--- the world took 4 billion years to evolve- so God made it so it was actually 6 days-- not 4 billion years. We're talking God here- he can change and shape time.
I'm just trying to show how the texts can be taken differently then literally.

 

[Pope Gonzo]

are you basically just saying that the universe looks like it does because God wants to trick scientists?

The universe looks like it does because God wants it like it is. Just because scientists are wrong about it is no reason to blame God. It's like a first grader blaming the teacher because he can't add seven and eight.

No, I don't see God taking the extra effort to make the earth start out in working order rather than waiting for it to work itself out lying. He created time, so why wait?

And I disagree that the evidence contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

[Jet Black]

The universe looks like it does because God wants it like it is. Just because scientists are wrong about it is no reason to blame God. It's like a first grader blaming the teacher because he can't add seven and eight.

one of the common creationist points is that everything must have purpose. therefore creating the universe to look exactly like it is 13.7 billion years old, and giving it all these wonderful values and so on and all these potential mechanisms for life evolving and coming about without a creator must be there for a purpose. That purpose can only be to decieve.

 

[Pope Gonzo]

Except there is no potential mechanism for life evolving and coming about without a creator. It's just like the Odds Game in the other thread - the odds are so small it really cannot be.

 

[Jet Black]

I told you already, improbable does not mean impossible.

 

[Pope Gonzo]

Have you ever read the book The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel? Its third(I think... it could be second) objection deals with evolution and creation and Gods role, and Bill Craig gives his reasons very clearly and presents them well. I don't have the book on hand, or I'd be a lot more clear.

But the point I'm making here is that even if they had trillions of years in perfect conditions(which the world was not in), that odds against random abiogenesis are so small that yes, improbably does mean impossible.

 

[Arikay]

Maybe you could start another thread showing How the evidence doesnt contradict a literal interpretation.
As long as your willing to learn.

And I disagree that the evidence contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

[Pope Gonzo]

Not tonight... I really need to get to bed

I'll work on one for tomorrow, though

 

[Arikay]

"that odds against random abiogenesis are so small that yes, improbably does mean"

Yep your right. Unfortunatly for you, Abiogenesis is Not random. Its chemistry and chemistry is Not random.

So we can see that the abiogenesis you are using is Not the real abiogenesis, thus your calculations mean nothing to this discussion.

Have you ever read the book The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel? Its third(I think... it could be second) objection deals with evolution and creation and Gods role, and Bill Craig gives his reasons very clearly and presents them well. I don't have the book on hand, or I'd be a lot more clear.

But the point I'm making here is that even if they had trillions of years in perfect conditions(which the world was not in), that odds against random abiogenesis are so small that yes, improbably does mean impossible.

 

[Jet Black]

improbably does mean impossible.

improbable does not mean impossible. in order to be impossible, you have to show me a mechanism to stop it from happening, and you haven't done that yet.

this is why I gave you the lottery analogy: just because the odds of something are 1:n does not mean you have to try it n times to get a win. you can get your win the first time.

 

[Snide]

Then the question becomes, what other explainations are there, and which one is the most probable?

So your method is to pick the highest probable item an accept it as fact even though other possibilities exist or even if its the only possibility you know of? Thats thinking with a very closed mind IMHO. That's the #1 problem I see with this debate, your accepting a maybe as fact. The underlying argument here is my belief is better then yours. No matter what side you pick, your picking belief.

When is the last time you observed evolution?

 

[Jet Black]

there is a difference between accepting the most probable, and belief.

and what sort of evolution is it you want? because evolution happens all the time. it is happening in the malarial areas of africa right now for example.

 

[Arikay]

Evolution is even happening on circuit boards and inside computer programs. Not to mention in nature.

 

[Snide]

I'm not sure how creating an aged earth is lying. God never says that he created a brand-new planet. Here's a different example: is it possible for God to create a piece of bread that's got a week of mold on it, or would he have to create it fresh out of the oven and let the mold grow for a week? Would creating it with a week of mold be lying to you if he told you he created it an hour ago? I don't think it would - I think it's just God making us think about it.

Quite honestly, I think we live in a deterministic universe. If I'm right then you could have been created in Gods mind before time began. I don't think God plays throw the dice! I think he knew your name long before your parents existed. I think he created every single human being that has ever existed. The way the bible is written hints to a deterministic universe created by God. Mathematics also hint to a deterministic universe, by the simple fact we have to use time in equations and are able to use equations to determine things.

 

[Jet Black]

Quite honestly, I think we live in a deterministic universe.

that's pretty cool. explain the nature of the collapse of a quantum wavefunction to me then.

 

[Snide]

With Quantum mechanics though, you just cannot have all the information. It is part of the nature of the universe that there is indeterminacy to things. This isn't to say that things are entirely random, they are random to some degree but within deterministic limits.

Quantum mechanical operations can be roughly split into two parts. An entirely deterministic and well understood part, in which particles interact with themselves and/or the environment, and their behaviours well understood, and then you have another part (the measurement) that is non deterministic (but within prescribed limits) one can predict the outcomes of large numbers of meaurements (the averages in other words) but one cannot predict the ourcome of a particular quantum measurement.

The problem with us having a nondeterministic universe is randomness. I don't need to know how to predict each and every measurement to show that the universe is deterministic. You can simply test its randomness in order to show if it is or not. You answer this question yourself in your post. If we are able to predict it, no matter how large the numbers, its not truely random and is being determined by something. It may be today, tomorrow, a million years from now, or never that we discover how to obtain the information but the fact that its not truely random shows its there to find. If it was non deterministic then you would never see a repeat ever! It will produce random outcomes for infinity! You could take measurements for ever and never see the same outcome twice!

The fact that we require time to get from point A to B shows all by itself without any other need from me to prove it, that we live in a deterministic universe. For example what is one thing you must have when you cook somehting: Time Can you cook something that is raw without time? No you cannot! Why? Because we live in a deterministic universe.

 

[Jet Black]

The problem with us having a nondeterministic universe is randomness. I don't need to know how to predict each and every measurement to show that the universe is deterministic. You can simply test its randomness in order to show if it is or not. You answer this question yourself in your post. If we are able to predict it, no matter how large the numbers, its not truely random and is being determined by something. It may be today, tomorrow, a million years from now, or never that we discover how to obtain the information but the fact that its not truely random shows its there to find.

If we are going to start a debate on this, how much do you know about quantum mechanics?

 

[Snide]

there is a difference between accepting the most probable, and belief.

and what sort of evolution is it you want? because evolution happens all the time. it is happening in the malarial areas of africa right now for example.

SearchBrain();

nope! Its not there!

I don't think I have ever heard on the news that someone has observed 2 different species being created from the same species.

Evolution is even happening on circuit boards and inside computer programs. Not to mention in nature.

I have been programming for a long long long time and I can quite honestly say that I have never ever seen a program give birth to 2 new speices of programs. Nor have I ever kicked a mountain dew bottle and ended up with a coke and 7up bottle. That is pretty much what the evolution we are speaking of does.

There is two different kinds of evolution:
1. That species adapt to an envrioment.
2. That one species branchs out into multiple species.

IE: there is evolution and there is the theory of evolution.

 

[Snide]

If we are going to start a debate on this, how much do you know about quantum mechanics?

Very little

 

[Jet Black]

that's a big problem then, because if you had, you would understand that this quantum randomness is a fundamental part of the laws of physics.