Creation & Evolution

[lucaspa]

Not really, without asking the creator or seeing the creation take place you could never be 100% certain about the method used to do the creating.

The present is the way it is because the past was the way it was.

IF each species had been specifically manufactured in its present form, living things would look much different than they do today.

Also, IF the earth was less than 20,000 years old, it would look much different than it does today.

The tools you use then leave marks in the physical universe that persist to the present.

God did NOT manufacture each species separately, either by speaking it into existence (Genesis 1) or forming it from dust (Genesis 2). Also, there was not a world-wide Flood, certainly not one that would give us the geology you see today.

You could only assume or guess that it was created by this or that.

What you do is state that the universe was created by this (or that). You then deduce what the universe would look like if this (or that) actually happened. Then you look at the universe to see if it looks like this (or that). If the universe doesn't look like this (or that), then you know it was not created that way. Simple deductive logic.

Just because you see evolution in the set of tools doesn’t mean you can explain what he does with it, if he has used it in his creations, the reasons behind using the tool, how long it has been there, if he has ever modified anything with it, or much of anything else.

What you can do is decide if He has used it in his creations. If He had used a different tool, then the creations would look different. Again, this is not saying evolution is a possible mechanism God used. The data say this IS the mechanism God used. The belief comes in believing there is a God and that God created.

[/QUOTE] What do come up with is that God has the option to use that tool. But you definitly cannot say that everything was created using that tool. You can believe it, but you'll never know it.[/QUOTE]

What you do know for absolute certainty is that everything was NOT created using the tool of instantaneous creation in its present form.

The evidence is overwhelming that evolution was the tool used. Therefore you accept that this was the tool used unless and until new data showing otherwise is found.

 

[lucaspa]

Let me add a few words here. First of all, science never claims something as 100% fact. Instead, science gains confidence in an explaination, (scientific guess >>> hypothesis >>> theory >>> law), based on many things including predictions. The more predictions that are proven true, the higher the confidence is in the explaination.

At a crime scene, similar steps are taken. If a business burns to the ground, one of the things that is investigated is arson. If the investigators find an accelerant in the flooring, the possibility of arson enters the picture. If the investigators also find an empty gas can just outside the doorway, confidence that this was an act of arson grows. If the investigators also find that the sprinkler system had been tampered with and disabled, confidence that it was arson grows even more. If the investigators find all these things, plus find that the business was financially suffering for the last 6 months, and a new insurance policy was purchased, confidence that this was arson, goes through the roof. Notice that the investigators did not actually have to see the crime in progress, in order to gain any confidence in their theory that is was an act of arson.

Science works the same way.

You outlined deductive logic. And by this we can be certain -- 100% certain -- that statements are wrong or false. What you are showing in the example is that ALL OTHER HYPOTHESES for the cause of the fire are being falsified so that arson is the only hypothesis left viable. What you have are deductions of evidence you should find IF it was arson but should NOT find if it was faulty wiring, lightning strike, gas leak, smoking in bed, etc. Thus, the investigators are 100% certain it was NOT a lightning strike because (although you didn't mention it) there was no storm that night or there is no characteristic charred streak where the lightning hit.

Now, the evidence supporting arson has reached the point where it is perverse not to accept arson as (provisionally) true. In legal terms, true beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless and until new evidence is found.

 

[lucaspa]

What science shows is that God could have used evolution to create, not that he did. If I’m wrong then you could tell me if the God the bible speaks of is a man made idea or not. Just by seeing if we were manufactured or not.

The literal interpretation of the Bible you are using is a mand-made idea. The data shows that God did use evolution to create.

I mean you are left to assume a lot of things like that the data we have now is an accurate representation of what happen.

Remember Who created. God. That's His Creation we are getting the data from. Now, doesn't that mean that the data HAS to be an accurate representation of what happened? If the data is not, then God lied to us in His Creation. God is not a liar. So Creation is an accurate representation of how God created.

This is one reason why creationism is more dangerous to Christianity than to science. Creationists don't really THINK about what they are saying in trying to defend their literal interpretation of the Bible. What you just did here was unthinkingly deny that God created and/or say that God lies.

The tools we use come from the environment and you would never be 100% sure of what was used or how it was created unless you can say an author did or didn’t create it. Even then you wouldn’t be 100% certain how it got created.

That's two different questions:
1. Did a deity create?
2. How was creation done?

You can be sure of the second without knowing the first. Thus we know 100% certain that each species was not placed on the planet in its present form. However, we are not sure IF there was an intelligent entity involved or IF that intelligent entity is a deity or IF that deity is Yhwh. From OTHER EVIDENCE Christians BELIEVE that Yhwh created. That other evidence is not creation or science, but revelation and personal experience of Yhwh.

More or less it’s like saying we have a chainsaw now so every tree must have always been cut down with a chainsaw. Years ago that chainsaw wasn’t in existence. People used a different method to chop down trees.

Think about this. Chainsaws leave characteristic marks on the stumps where they cut thru the wood. Axes also leave characteristic marks that are different from chainsaws. So, we can look at the stumps and tell whether they were cut down with chainsaws or axes. Same thing with creationism and evolution. We can look at living organisms and tell whether they were made in their present form or evolved from common ancestors.

That’s not really random though, that is pseudorandom. In other words if you flipped 2 coins in the same manner in a controlled environment you would have a sequence. IE: both coins would land the same way. If it was truly random then each coin could show different results, they wouldn’t always land the same way. This is the difference between a deterministic and non deterministic random number. A deterministic random number is not a true random number, it’s almost a random number.

You are trying to equate indeterministic with random. Two separate ideas. For all intents and purposes, since we do not control coin flips and can never reproduce the minute conditions, coin flips are indeterministic. That is, you can't tell (at our level of knowledge) which way an individual coin flip will go. BUT, you do know that, in a large number of coin flips you will see 50% heads and 50% tails. So, the probabilities are deterministic even tho the individual coin flips are not.

Now, let's take an example from quantum mechanics. Shine a beam of photons (light) onto a mirror. 95% will be reflected and 5% will pass THRU the mirror. All the photons are identical and there is no way to DETERMINE WHICH PHOTON will reflect and which will pass thru. There is no "cause" for one being reflected and the next passing thru the mirror. Thus the universe is indeterministic.

BUT, because we can rely on 95% being reflected, we can have the deterministic theory of optics.

A non-deterministic universe would be a non-rational universe. There would be no such thing as physics in a nondeterministic world because there would be no structure to it what so ever!

Again, you are equating two separate concepts: determinism and structure. The probabilities provide structure. It would be impossible to predict something from one second to the next.

Making our communication on this board for example, impossible!

The location of each electron in the electron beam lighting the monitor is indeterministic. That is, you can NEVER know both the momentum and position of the electron. However, because the position lies within probabilistic limits, you know that enough electrons will hit the phosphors to provide the image we see.

Just like that coin example of yours, if I knew enough information I could predict what that coin was going to do accurately every single time you flipped it.

Yes, the coin you could. But the quantum events you can't. The indeterminancy there is not due to imprecise measurements. Physicists have tried that. Einstein tried that for years and failed.

Just because I may not have the ability to gather all the information doesn’t mean that all information isn’t there.

In this case, it does. The data is very clear on that. Instead of repeating denials, why don't you go look up the data for yourself? As I said The Whole Shebang is a good place to start. So is this article:
M Tegmark and JA Wheeler, 100 years of quantum mysteries. Scientific American 284: 68-75, Feb. 2001. From there you can find articles that take you more into the actual data.

In a non-deterministic world it doesn’t matter how much information I have, I cannot predict anything because it’s truly random.

That’s very understandable because it’s not accurate of our universe. ...The simple fact that we are able to use algorithms to get desirable results should be proof enough that we live in a deterministic world. In a non-deterministic world things are happening truly random so algorithms would be useless.

It is accurate of our universe. And the universe APPEARS deterministic because of those probabilities. Therefore algorithms -- including the algorithm of natural selection -- work.

I don’t understand how he comes to that conclusion because for me it does the exact opposite of that. A non-deterministic universe would be absolutely meaningless. Things would happen at random without any kind of purpose. However in a deterministic universe there is some purpose to it, we would have a structure, a reason for being here.

In a purely deterministic universe there is no free-will. EVERYTHING is pre-determined by the conditions immediately before. And that includes your thoughts and the actions/choices that arise from those thoughts. Therefore, in a purely deterministic universe you are a puppet to the initial conditions of the universe. Everything you do, think, and say was determined at the moment the universe was formed because everything MUST have a cause and be the result of that cause. That cause being a prior condidtion of the universe. Therefore your life is meaningless because you have no opportunity to do anything different than what you do. Meaning comes only by choices and the consequences of those choices. That is taken away in a purely deterministic universe.

I’m doing this from a mathematical standpoint. It’s why I don’t want to accept it, it doesn’t sound accurately mathematically or with what I see with every day life.

Mathematically, QM is sound. I did the Schroedinger's particle in a box math when I took physical chemistry and it matched observation just fine. Quantum chronodynamics matches chemistry to unheard of precision -- 1 part in billions.

But no, it isn't what you see in everyday life. QM goes against everything we call "common sense". It just means our common sense isn't a reliable guide. For instance, you never see the same object existing in two different places at the same time. You never see two of your friend standing ten feet apart. Yet that is exactly what happened with a Rydberg atom (an atom with a very high positive charge) at the quantum level: J Winters, Quantum cat tricks. Discover, 17(10): 26, Oct. 1996.

Also, you never see particles have waves. They are solid and not wavelike. Yet when a Bose-Einstein condensate is made of hundreds or thousands of atoms, you can SEE the waves. EA Cornell and CE Weiman, The Bose-Einstein condensate. Scientific American, 278(3): 40-45, March 1998.

Finally, a cat can't be both dead and alive in your everyday experience. It is either one or the other, not both. Yet at the quantum level this happens. Observed. P Yam, Bringing Schrodinger's cat to life. Scientific American, June, 1997, pp. 124-129. Summary of recent experiments of superposition (coherence) and dechoherence.

The data is what it is.

 

[lucaspa]

Just to jump from one side to the other to show an open mind: I will say the 6,000 year old earth idea that dr dino or whatever they got that idea from is nonsense. The earth is a whole lot older then that and anyone who says it isn't is just enjoying a conjured felicity and not accepting the facts.

So, even tho you weren't there to see how God created, you know God did not create the universe and earth 6,000 years ago. You do realize that you just refuted your own arguments, don't you?

Does that dispute the bible in a way, yes and no. The question is are you reading the meaning correctly. An author in the bible said a day to God is like 1,000 years to a man. And then antoher author said everything was created in 6 days. Neither author was meaning that to be read literally I don't think or they probably wouldn't have said it.

So once again, even tho the "word of God" says so, God's Creation can show you that a man-made interpretation can be wrong.

Again, you just refuted all your arguments against our not knowing that evolution is how God created.

 

[Snide]

You are trying to equate indeterministic with random. Two separate ideas. For all intents and purposes, since we do not control coin flips and can never reproduce the minute conditions, coin flips are indeterministic. That is, you can't tell (at our level of knowledge) which way an individual coin flip will go. BUT, you do know that, in a large number of coin flips you will see 50% heads and 50% tails. So, the probabilities are deterministic even tho the individual coin flips are not.

Deterministic and random are 2 very linked subjects. The first thing you will learn about random number generators on a computer, is they can only generate pesudorandom numbers because a computer is a deterministic machine. You have the same exact situation with the universe that you have with computers, if you know enough information you are able to predict the number. In other words its not truely random if you are able to predict the outcome.

Even if you have a infinite amount of knowlege, you wouldn't be able to predict the outcome of a true random number. You could only generate this in a non-deterministic system. The reason is because a non-deterministic system doesn't generate a number based on anything.

Now, let's take an example from quantum mechanics. Shine a beam of photons (light) onto a mirror. 95% will be reflected and 5% will pass THRU the mirror. All the photons are identical and there is no way to DETERMINE WHICH PHOTON will reflect and which will pass thru. There is no "cause" for one being reflected and the next passing thru the mirror. Thus the universe is indeterministic.

If the universe was nondeterministic then we would be able to leave TIME out of our equations.

In this case, it does. The data is very clear on that. Instead of repeating denials, why don't you go look up the data for yourself? As I said The Whole Shebang is a good place to start. So is this article:
M Tegmark and JA Wheeler, 100 years of quantum mysteries. Scientific American 284: 68-75, Feb. 2001. From there you can find articles that take you more into the actual data.

The simple fact that we use algorithms to explain things and predict things is enough data to show that we live in a deterministic universe.

In a purely deterministic universe there is no free-will. EVERYTHING is pre-determined by the conditions immediately before. And that includes your thoughts and the actions/choices that arise from those thoughts. Therefore, in a purely deterministic universe you are a puppet to the initial conditions of the universe. Everything you do, think, and say was determined at the moment the universe was formed because everything MUST have a cause and be the result of that cause. That cause being a prior condidtion of the universe. Therefore your life is meaningless because you have no opportunity to do anything different than what you do. Meaning comes only by choices and the consequences of those choices. That is taken away in a purely deterministic universe.

Well just because you live in a deterministic universe doesn't mean that anything isn't possible. It just means that the action you take can be predicted. The actions you take are based on previous experiences. So you have a problem with Fate? I mean isn't that how life works? Do you not go about your day in a sequence of steps?

Mathematically, QM is sound. I did the Schroedinger's particle in a box math when I took physical chemistry and it matched observation just fine. Quantum chronodynamics matches chemistry to unheard of precision -- 1 part in billions.

A deterministic universe has been a long standing problem in quantum physics. The system ins't very compatible with a deterministic universe. It can be made compatible but that is going to take a lotta work.

Finally, a cat can't be both dead and alive in your everyday experience. It is either one or the other, not both. Yet at the quantum level this happens. Observed. P Yam, Bringing Schrodinger's cat to life. Scientific American, June, 1997, pp. 124-129. Summary of recent experiments of superposition (coherence) and dechoherence.

The data is what it is.

My point is that it is happening for a reason. You may not be able to figure out that reason but you can see that one exists. If it wasnt then you could experience watching your coffiee cup grow legs and walking away.

 

[Snide]

So, even tho you weren't there to see how God created, you know God did not create the universe and earth 6,000 years ago. You do realize that you just refuted your own arguments, don't you?

I say that because we have evidence that shows the earth is much older then 6,000 years.

I say false on evolution because we ony have evidence supporting the idea that it could happen.

Evidence supporting an idea and evidence showing an idea is 2 different things.

 

[TheBear]

I say false on evolution because we ony have evidence supporting the idea that it could happen.

Evidence supporting an idea and evidence showing an idea is 2 different things.

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

 

[TheBear]

You outlined deductive logic. And by this we can be certain -- 100% certain -- that statements are wrong or false. What you are showing in the example is that ALL OTHER HYPOTHESES for the cause of the fire are being falsified so that arson is the only hypothesis left viable. What you have are deductions of evidence you should find IF it was arson but should NOT find if it was faulty wiring, lightning strike, gas leak, smoking in bed, etc. Thus, the investigators are 100% certain it was NOT a lightning strike because (although you didn't mention it) there was no storm that night or there is no characteristic charred streak where the lightning hit.

Now, the evidence supporting arson has reached the point where it is perverse not to accept arson as (provisionally) true. In legal terms, true beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless and until new evidence is found.

You are right. Thus, we now have a more complete description of the scientific process. (in layman's terms )

 

[Pope Gonzo]

Alright, as much as I want to, I'm not gonna let myself go point-by-point agreeing or disagreeing with everything everyone said. I'm just gonna touch on a couple things and eventually get in the middle of the discussion

First of all, if God is all-powerful, what is so difficult for him about creating a world that is already in full working order that appears billions of years old? Also, as far as evolutionary theory goes, how did sea mammals evolve? Or how did sea animals evolve to the land in general? As soon as some began mutating to grow legs, it would make them weaker swimmers, and the stronger swimmers would get the food. Basic natural selection. And with all this evidence supporting evolution, why is it that we've only got a loose handful of fossils of "missing links," while we've got a plethora(fun word) of defined species. And you can't say that we just haven't found the missing links, because if they were on the earth just as long as the other species, wouldn't we have a much closer ratio than what we've got?

I dunno, just a couple things to chew on. I strongly recommend reading The Case for Faith, by Lee Strobel. The third objection really deals with this, and it's quite interesting.

 

[Jet Black]

First of all, if God is all-powerful, what is so difficult for him about creating a world that is already in full working order that appears billions of years old?

this is a valid view, but then one could also believe that everything was created by invisible elves on flying carpets a week last tuesday just after lunch.

Also, as far as evolutionary theory goes, how did sea mammals evolve? Or how did sea animals evolve to the land in general? As soon as some began mutating to grow legs, it would make them weaker swimmers, and the stronger swimmers would get the food.

those kinds of arguments really show that you haven't looked into this very much at all. sadly I don't have a good set of links here as I am at work, but look in some of the other threads, lucaspa does a very good line in informing people about these things.

Basic natural selection. And with all this evidence supporting evolution, why is it that we've only got a loose handful of fossils of "missing links," while we've got a plethora(fun word) of defined species.

there are lots and lots of examples, again, there are plenty links spread around in the forums.
furthermore, you really have to remember that stuff rots; not every generation will produce fossils. If it did, we would be knee deep in skeletons from the past 6000 years, never mind the last millions.

 

[Jet Black]

If God created life by evolution, why doesn't it say so in the Bible?

why doesn't the bible mention quarks?

 

[Pope Gonzo]

Well, the Bible doesn't credit invisible elves on flying carpets with creating the universe.

I've got one quick question for you: do you believe in the Bible? (This is an honest question, because isn't this one of the debate forums?) Because if you do, I don't need to get into the origin of life or the flood.

 

[Arikay]

The only problem with the appearence of age theory is that it suggests God was willing to put lies in his creation. That he purposly make the earth appear to be much older than it is to lie to us.

 

[Arikay]

One thing to point out is that there are many interpretations of the bible. So how do you figure out which one is correct?

If god created the universe, then he created two books, his creation (the earth and the universe) and the bible. If the two dont mesh, many would rather say that our interpretation of the bible is wrong, than god.

Well, the Bible doesn't credit invisible elves on flying carpets with creating the universe.

I've got one quick question for you: do you believe in the Bible? (This is an honest question, because isn't this one of the debate forums?) Because if you do, I don't need to get into the origin of life or the flood.

 

[Pope Gonzo]

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.

 

[Pope Gonzo]

I don't see the earth and the universe contradicting the Bible

 

[Jet Black]

Just like that coin example of yours, if I knew enough information I could predict what that coin was going to do accurately every single time you flipped it. This is just like the tree falling in the woods with nobody around to hear it scenario. Just because I may not have the ability to gather all the information doesn’t mean that all information isn’t there.

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.

 

[Jet Black]

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.

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

 

[Arikay]

So you dont see god taking extra effort to fake the age of the earth so that we would find the age of the earth to be 750,000 times older than it really is, lieing?

 

[Arikay]

Your right, the earth Does not contradict the bible.

It does however contradict a literal interpretation of the bible.

I don't see the earth and the universe contradicting the Bible