• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Math Logic Disproves Evoution

Status
Not open for further replies.

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
“Incompleteness” for want of a better world is evident throughout nature. For example in physics there is the uncertainty principle.
Inherent limitations to what we can know about a quantum system is not the same 'incomplteness' as that described by Godel.

And in the natural world life is organized in way a way that prevents conscious life from being in direct contact with its ultimate source of life
Source?

Light flows to the green plants, which use light to make the food that flows to the animals. It would be an advantage for an animal to be able to make food from light the way that plants do. But there are no animals that can make food from light the way plants do.
They have no need to: the eat plants and animals..

Plants that receive their food from this ultimate source are unconscious and unseeing. There are no plants with eyes that can see or minds that can know. Life, it seems, is shielded from ever coming face to face and knowing where its life comes from. Life is divided in two. The living things that receive their “food” as light are unconscious and unseeing. And the animals that can see and think receive the “light as food” only indirectly from the food that the plants produce for them.
Not all heterotrophs are concious and thinking, and not all autotrophs are unconcious and unthinking, and neither are they all plants. Even if we assume your oversimplification is true, I'm not sure what your point is. We do not photosynthesise, yet we are intimately aware of the process.

Incompleteness is very important because it means that we can never really know the ultimate nature of the world around us. Its like a bank statement that doesn't show the final balance and has some entries missing - it tells us some but in the end the balance could be anything.
Gaps in our knowledge about the world are not the same kind of incompleteness that is described by Godel.
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
297
✟30,402.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Life is divided in two. The living things that receive their “food” as light are unconscious and unseeing. And the animals that can see and think receive the “light as food” only indirectly from the food that the plants produce for them.
Interesting admission. I take it that because you believe plants to be alive, you are not YEC or OEC (who don't regard plants as living things).
So what is your position on origins, no1nose? You've spent a lot of time trashing other positions, but have yet to elucidate your own.
 
Upvote 0

no1nose

Junior Member
Jan 2, 2006
200
7
North Island
Visit site
✟22,865.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So what is your position on origins, no1nose? You've spent a lot of time trashing other positions, but have yet to elucidate your own.

For life as we know it there are three essential needs – air, water and food. Without air we die in minutes. At most we can live only a few days without water and without food a few weeks. Take the need to breathe. Both plants and animals need air. But instead of competing with each other for air to breathe, plants and animals complement and benefit one another. Plants breathe in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen. Animals breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide. In using air, each one produces what the other needs. The relationship between plants and animals is symbiotic – each one complements the other in a relationship that benefits both.

Living things need water. But unlike air, water has only one ingredient and both plants and animals need water itself. Yet the use for this vital need is still a model of cooperation. Plants and animals do not compete against each other for water. Plants take water from under the ground where it is not usually available for use by animals. Animals take water from the surface of lakes and streams that are not generally sources for plants. Also, the use of water by plants benefits animals by influencing the climate to produce rain. And the use of water by animals benefits plants by adding nutrients to the soil.

The third need for life is food. Here it would seem natural for the cooperation seen in air and water to continue. Nothing has to die for us to breathe and nothing must die for us to drink water. But here the cooperation in the natural world breaks down. Food is different. While we can find remnants of cooperation between living things for the most part something must die for something else to eat. Most people accept as normal, after all we live in a dog eat dog world. But why is food different from air and water; why is it that something must die for there to be food for another?

It appears that there has been a breakdown in the natural order of the universe. On one hand the universe was created with the precise exactness that is necessary to support life. But on the other hand the amount of life in the universe that wasted must cause us to question. Would a man build a fine stadium that could seat fifty thousand people and then allow only one seat in the stadium to be used?

When we look to the stars we see the vastness of empty space. The universe expands into nothingness with a highly uncertain future. When we look on earth we see the exact opposite. On earth there is a critical shortage of space for life. If life was meant to be as well designed as the physical universe then something catastrophic has gone wrong. One can marvel at the miracle of life that is contained in just one seed. Could man build anything as wondrous as a seed? Truly this is precisely engineered work of God. Something made by God with such care surely was not meant to go to waste.

In the book of Genesis we are told the order in which God created the universe. His work was good and perfect. Then on the sixth day God opened door for mankind to make choices that would determine the future of all life. We often hear of the Ten Commandants but this is that very first commandment given to mankind and therefore the most important.

Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth." And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
Genesis 1:28-29

Here we see a double emphasis on growth. These commandments were given in the context of the creation of the universe. They were interwoven into the fabric of creation itself. Both these commandments are linked to procreation and the increase of living things. Foremost in God’s mind at the creation was the importance of and the increase of mankind and as well a other life.

These commands assume there would be enough room for all of mankind to fit upon the face of the earth. In a world like that of the Transfiguration this would be possible. There would be room for everyone who could ever possibility be born. But in our world there is no room for unbounded life to grow. Instead most of the life that is possible never comes into being. The amount of life that is wasted is a very large number, number large enough to continually fill the entire universe.

“Everyone” is another impossibly large number, enough to fill the earth many times over. But the people living a world that was like that of the Transfiguration would have found would have found our earth very spacious. Perhaps one’s space in the Garden would be the size of our world. This is the space that Adam and Eve had it may have been the standard meant for all couples. Nor would living in your own “world” have isolated people. In paradise contact and communion with others and God was close at hand.

And this all depended on obeying God’s commands:

And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Genesis 1:19

If given this command there are two very important questions that one would naturally ask. First, how would one know whether a fruit has a seed in it or not? There are kinds of fruit that do not have seeds and one can not tell this simply by looking at them. Secondly, what would happen if a seedless fruit was eaten? Both of these questions are answered later by God in the Garden of Eden:

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
Genesis 2:16-17

In the Garden mankind and the animals ate fruit and leaves. Death was not present in the Garden and one animal did not eat another. But at some point this began to happen. Today most people may think that it is necessary for animals to eat each other to live. But this is not true. For at some point the in the food chain the animal that is eaten is one that eats plants. Plants provide the basis for all food that is eaten. Without plants as food the animal kingdom would soon starve. The plant kingdom feeds the animal kingdom and light from the sun feed the plant kingdom.

It is light that is the primary source of all food. So awesome is this process that brings us food that we cannot have direct knowledge of it. Just as we are unable to look upon God directly:

The Lord said . . . "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live. " Exodus 33:20

Light flows to the green plants, which use light to make the food that flows to the animals. It would be an advantage for an animal to be able to make food from light the way that plants do. But there are no animals that can make food from light the way plants do.

Plants that receive their food from this ultimate source are unconscious and unseeing. There are no plants with eyes that can see or minds that can know. Life, it seems, is shielded from ever coming face to face and knowing where its life comes from. Life is divided in two. The living things that receive their “food” as light are unconscious and unseeing. And the animals that can see and think receive the “light as food” only indirectly from the food that the plants produce for them.
God gave plants to all the animals as their food

"Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food"; and it was so. Genesis 1:30

Plants produce enough food to feed the animal kingdom many time over. But not all animals eat plants. Some animals eat plants while some animals eat other animals. While it is possible for all animals to eat food from plants they no longer do so.
In Genesis we are told that in the Garden all animals ate fruit and leaves, that is, the plant kingdom provided food for the animal kingdom. This then would put the provision of food in harmony with the overall design for life. According to Genesis, the plant kingdom provided food for the animal kingdom and in return Adam “tended the garden”.

If we look again at Genesis 1:29-30 we must conclude that the exact diet that was given here consisted only of fruit and leaves. In Genesis 3:18 we find this fact reinforced, as when leaving the Garden God tells Adam and Eve that they will now eat the plants themselves:


“and you shall eat the plants of the field” Genesis 3:18


This verse implies that before this, whole plants were not eaten. The point here to remember is that in the Garden death did not exist. If animals had eaten the plants themselves, then death would have been present even if it were of something that was unconscious.

The restriction to only fruit and leaves meant that death was not present in the Garden. For example if one eats a leaf from a plant the plant need not die. Nor is the leaf itself a living entity but can be taken without the loss of life of the plant. The same is true if one eats fruit from a tree. The seed of the fruit is a living entity and can die but it is not meant to be eaten. Later in Genesis, when Adam and Eve had left the Garden of Eden, we find that plants themselves were not eaten; rather mankind was given meat as food.


“The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon the fish of the sea, they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.” Genesis 9:2-3
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

no1nose

Junior Member
Jan 2, 2006
200
7
North Island
Visit site
✟22,865.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So what is your position on origins, no1nose? You've spent a lot of time trashing other positions, but have yet to elucidate your own.



This is part two of the answer - please start with the post above


We have gotten ahead of ourselves here and need to go back to the beginning. Before us now the stage is set in the Garden of Eden as it was before Adam and Eve sinned. Here God give Adam and Eve fruit with seed in it to eat;

“I give you every seed-bearing plant” and “every tree that has fruit with seed in it.” Genesis 1-29-30

But at the same time there was one fruit that they were forbidden to eat:

“Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in that day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Genesis 2:16-17

Here we have two commands. In the first command God gives Adam and Eve every fruit with seed. In the second command God gives Adam and Eve every fruit except the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. For both of these commands to be consistent then the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil could not have had a seed.

In the context of the creation of that time there would be two consequences of this. First, without seed there would be no need for additional space for new plants. From Genesis 1:28-29 it would appear that in the beginning life and its need for space were linked together into one organic whole.

Looking at the universe is like looking at the pieces of a broken watch. We know what it was suppose to do but it is very difficult to know how the different pieces fit together and actually worked. We know that God commanded that the earth be filled with life. And we know that the earth as we know it is far to small to hold the life that God intended for it.

For the universe to work as God intended it to then the “room” on earth would have needed to expand with in introduction of new life. Original sin broke the link between the growth of life and the room for new life. Life became trapped in a microscopic portion of the universe while the universe continued to grow in size. This is truly a fantastic idea. But it answers the question of why the reproduction of life is so dysfunctional in a universe that was precisely designed for it.

Consuming something without a seed will lead to scarcity. When something is scarce it becomes a source of conflict between competing parties. But consuming fruit with seeds will lead to an abundance of what is being consumed because the seeds can be planted to produce more of what is being eaten. With just a few words the story of the Garden of Eden gives us an insight into how a perfect world would work. When Adam and Eve ate what was forbidden they broke fellowship with God. They shattered paradise where consumption and reproduction actually created more space to live and food to eat.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Melethiel

Miserere mei, Domine
Site Supporter
Jun 8, 2005
27,287
940
35
Ohio
✟99,593.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
I honestly don't know how to explain it to you any better than I have. If you are really interested it may help if you tell me what you think that I am saying and from that I may be able to explain better.

I have no idea what you are saying. That is the problem. You make a vague comment that Darwin stole the "redeemer scenario" from Christianity, but fail to explain it in any coherent way. Your posts betray a lack of understanding of what evolution really teaches, as well as horribly twisting Christianity. It would really help if you would answer these questions, simply and directly, in as few words as possible (waxing verbose only makes your posts confusing):

Who/what is being redeemed in evolution?
Who/what is doing the redeeming?
Why is this redemption necessary?
What is the means of this redemption?
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
297
✟30,402.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
For life as we know it there are three essential needs – air, water and food. Without air we die in minutes. At most we can live only a few days without water and without food a few weeks. Take the need to breathe. Both plants and animals need air. But instead of competing with each other for air to breathe, plants and animals complement and benefit one another. Plants breathe in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen. Animals breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide. In using air, each one produces what the other needs. The relationship between plants and animals is symbiotic – each one complements the other in a relationship that benefits both.

Living things need water. But unlike air, water has only one ingredient and both plants and animals need water itself. Yet the use for this vital need is still a model of cooperation. Plants and animals do not compete against each other for water. Plants take water from under the ground where it is not usually available for use by animals. Animals take water from the surface of lakes and streams that are not generally sources for plants. Also, the use of water by plants benefits animals by influencing the climate to produce rain. And the use of water by animals benefits plants by adding nutrients to the soil.

The third need for life is food. Here it would seem natural for the cooperation seen in air and water to continue. Nothing has to die for us to breathe and nothing must die for us to drink water. But here the cooperation in the natural world breaks down. Food is different. While we can find remnants of cooperation between living things for the most part something must die for something else to eat. Most people accept as normal, after all we live in a dog eat dog world. But why is food different from air and water; why is it that something must die for there to be food for another?

It appears that there has been a breakdown in the natural order of the universe. On one hand the universe was created with the precise exactness that is necessary to support life. But on the other hand the amount of life in the universe that wasted must cause us to question. Would a man build a fine stadium that could seat fifty thousand people and then allow only one seat in the stadium to be used?

When we look to the stars we see the vastness of empty space. The universe expands into nothingness with a highly uncertain future. When we look on earth we see the exact opposite. On earth there is a critical shortage of space for life. If life was meant to be as well designed as the physical universe then something catastrophic has gone wrong. One can marvel at the miracle of life that is contained in just one seed. Could man build anything as wondrous as a seed? Truly this is precisely engineered work of God. Something made by God with such care surely was not meant to go to waste.

In the book of Genesis we are told the order in which God created the universe. His work was good and perfect. Then on the sixth day God opened door for mankind to make choices that would determine the future of all life. We often hear of the Ten Commandants but this is that very first commandment given to mankind and therefore the most important.

Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth." And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
Genesis 1:28-29

Here we see a double emphasis on growth. These commandments were given in the context of the creation of the universe. They were interwoven into the fabric of creation itself. Both these commandments are linked to procreation and the increase of living things. Foremost in God’s mind at the creation was the importance of and the increase of mankind and as well a other life.

These commands assume there would be enough room for all of mankind to fit upon the face of the earth. In a world like that of the Transfiguration this would be possible. There would be room for everyone who could ever possibility be born. But in our world there is no room for unbounded life to grow. Instead most of the life that is possible never comes into being. The amount of life that is wasted is a very large number, number large enough to continually fill the entire universe.

“Everyone” is another impossibly large number, enough to fill the earth many times over. But the people living a world that was like that of the Transfiguration would have found would have found our earth very spacious. Perhaps one’s space in the Garden would be the size of our world. This is the space that Adam and Eve had it may have been the standard meant for all couples. Nor would living in your own “world” have isolated people. In paradise contact and communion with others and God was close at hand.

And this all depended on obeying God’s commands:

And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Genesis 1:19

If given this command there are two very important questions that one would naturally ask. First, how would one know whether a fruit has a seed in it or not? There are kinds of fruit that do not have seeds and one can not tell this simply by looking at them. Secondly, what would happen if a seedless fruit was eaten? Both of these questions are answered later by God in the Garden of Eden:

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
Genesis 2:16-17

In the Garden mankind and the animals ate fruit and leaves. Death was not present in the Garden and one animal did not eat another. But at some point this began to happen. Today most people may think that it is necessary for animals to eat each other to live. But this is not true. For at some point the in the food chain the animal that is eaten is one that eats plants. Plants provide the basis for all food that is eaten. Without plants as food the animal kingdom would soon starve. The plant kingdom feeds the animal kingdom and light from the sun feed the plant kingdom.

It is light that is the primary source of all food. So awesome is this process that brings us food that we cannot have direct knowledge of it. Just as we are unable to look upon God directly:

The Lord said . . . "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live. " Exodus 33:20

Light flows to the green plants, which use light to make the food that flows to the animals. It would be an advantage for an animal to be able to make food from light the way that plants do. But there are no animals that can make food from light the way plants do.

Plants that receive their food from this ultimate source are unconscious and unseeing. There are no plants with eyes that can see or minds that can know. Life, it seems, is shielded from ever coming face to face and knowing where its life comes from. Life is divided in two. The living things that receive their “food” as light are unconscious and unseeing. And the animals that can see and think receive the “light as food” only indirectly from the food that the plants produce for them.
God gave plants to all the animals as their food

"Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food"; and it was so. Genesis 1:30

Plants produce enough food to feed the animal kingdom many time over. But not all animals eat plants. Some animals eat plants while some animals eat other animals. While it is possible for all animals to eat food from plants they no longer do so.
In Genesis we are told that in the Garden all animals ate fruit and leaves, that is, the plant kingdom provided food for the animal kingdom. This then would put the provision of food in harmony with the overall design for life. According to Genesis, the plant kingdom provided food for the animal kingdom and in return Adam “tended the garden”.

If we look again at Genesis 1:29-30 we must conclude that the exact diet that was given here consisted only of fruit and leaves. In Genesis 3:18 we find this fact reinforced, as when leaving the Garden God tells Adam and Eve that they will now eat the plants themselves:


“and you shall eat the plants of the field” Genesis 3:18


This verse implies that before this, whole plants were not eaten. The point here to remember is that in the Garden death did not exist. If animals had eaten the plants themselves, then death would have been present even if it were of something that was unconscious.

The restriction to only fruit and leaves meant that death was not present in the Garden. For example if one eats a leaf from a plant the plant need not die. Nor is the leaf itself a living entity but can be taken without the loss of life of the plant. The same is true if one eats fruit from a tree. The seed of the fruit is a living entity and can die but it is not meant to be eaten. Later in Genesis, when Adam and Eve had left the Garden of Eden, we find that plants themselves were not eaten; rather mankind was given meat as food.


“The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon the fish of the sea, they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.” Genesis 9:2-3

This is part two of the answer - please start with the post above


We have gotten ahead of ourselves here and need to go back to the beginning. Before us now the stage is set in the Garden of Eden as it was before Adam and Eve sinned. Here God give Adam and Eve fruit with seed in it to eat;

“I give you every seed-bearing plant” and “every tree that has fruit with seed in it.” Genesis 1-29-30

But at the same time there was one fruit that they were forbidden to eat:

“Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in that day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Genesis 2:16-17

Here we have two commands. In the first command God gives Adam and Eve every fruit with seed. In the second command God gives Adam and Eve every fruit except the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. For both of these commands to be consistent then the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil could not have had a seed.

In the context of the creation of that time there would be two consequences of this. First, without seed there would be no need for additional space for new plants. From Genesis 1:28-29 it would appear that in the beginning life and its need for space were linked together into one organic whole.

Looking at the universe is like looking at the pieces of a broken watch. We know what it was suppose to do but it is very difficult to know how the different pieces fit together and actually worked. We know that God commanded that the earth be filled with life. And we know that the earth as we know it is far to small to hold the life that God intended for it.

For the universe to work as God intended it to then the “room” on earth would have needed to expand with in introduction of new life. Original sin broke the link between the growth of life and the room for new life. Life became trapped in a microscopic portion of the universe while the universe continued to grow in size. This is truly a fantastic idea. But it answers the question of why the reproduction of life is so dysfunctional in a universe that was precisely designed for it.

Consuming something without a seed will lead to scarcity. When something is scarce it becomes a source of conflict between competing parties. But consuming fruit with seeds will lead to an abundance of what is being consumed because the seeds can be planted to produce more of what is being eaten. With just a few words the story of the Garden of Eden gives us an insight into how a perfect world would work. When Adam and Eve ate what was forbidden they broke fellowship with God. They shattered paradise where consumption and reproduction actually created more space to live and food to eat.
You could have just said, "I am a young earth creationist." ;)

(By the way, there's still death in your Genesis scenario. Even if the entire plant doesn't die, its component cells still do. Death is inevitable if you hold plants as living beings.)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

no1nose

Junior Member
Jan 2, 2006
200
7
North Island
Visit site
✟22,865.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thanks for your comments

(By the way, there's still death in your Genesis scenario. Even if the entire plant doesn't die, its component cells still do. Death is inevitable if you hold plants as living beings.)

I would disagree with this. Cells are not each an individual identity but as a whole form an one individual. Unless you kill all the cells then the identity is not lost.

I
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
297
✟30,402.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
I would disagree with this. Cells are not each an individual identity but as a whole form an one individual. Unless you kill all the cells then the identity is not lost.
What about single-celled organisms and plant life? Did nothing eat them in the Garden?
Do you consider single-celled zygotes to be alive?
 
Upvote 0

no1nose

Junior Member
Jan 2, 2006
200
7
North Island
Visit site
✟22,865.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What about single-celled organisms and plant life? Did nothing eat them in the Garden?
Do you consider single-celled zygotes to be alive?


Its not a worry to me. For me this is an issue over what makes something within life an individual. Many cells even though separated by space still can make up one individual. The loss of some cells in this case is not the death of the individual.

We think of ourselves as being individuals and we are. But we are also a composite mix of shared traits and identities that we inherit from our parents. We are born into a country and family and inherit physical traits from our parents. But for God the individual identity is by far the most important of all. A nation can be restored and tribes and families rebuilt, but a lost individual is far more serious.
.
As individuals we are far more important to God than we realize. Just being something “individual” is itself of great importance. We often don’t realize the importance of being individual because we are surrounded by what seems to be a world of individual things. But the idea of “individual things” is an illusion. In reality things can be “separate” but not “individual”. The universe itself is the only one great individual “thing”. Everything else is just a part of this one thing and not individual.

Within the universe things may appear separate but they are not truly individual. For example a small stone may look individual but it was once part of a larger rock that was part of an even larger formation. It is part of the formation but now separate from it. And so while things may appear to be individual they are really only separated from the larger body they belong to. This is true with everything if you take the time to think it through. Only the universe is the only individual thing. Things may look individual, but in reality one cannot even draw a circle around an atom and say, “here is an individual”. The moment we try to do this quantum uncertainty will cause the atom to become so “shadowy” as to almost disappear. The law of nature's is that elemental things are never completely individual.

Living things are different and can be individual. People are truly individual because the qualities that make them individual are not subject to the physical laws of nature. The entire universe can be heated until all the different elements melt into a state of oneness that is pure energy. But the qualities that make an individual person cannot be melted nor can they be squeezed by gravity into a dimensionless speck. Instead God created and breathed live into us. Each of us is truly unique, individual and of far more value to God than was can ever realize.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
297
✟30,402.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Well, I've certainly learned a few things in this thread. Namely:
1) Despite its successful status among scientists, evolutionary theory is wrong because it's just too simple.
2) In coming up with his theory, Darwin was simply rehashing the story of Jesus' death and resurrection (even though he never wrote anything to suggest as much).
3) Even though animals ate the leaves and fruits of plants in the Garden of Eden, no plant ever died. And single-celled organisms were never eaten.

Thanks for the biology lesson, no1nose.
 
Upvote 0

no1nose

Junior Member
Jan 2, 2006
200
7
North Island
Visit site
✟22,865.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Despite its successful status among scientists, evolutionary theory is wrong because it's just too simple.

A lot of successful idea have been wrong haven't they. The point isn't that its too simple. Instead it is incomplete.

Even though animals ate the leaves and fruits of plants in the Garden of Eden, no plant ever died. And single-celled organisms were never eaten

I don't think I said that but I will say this:

There are four food types:
1. Foods that create more life when eaten; fruit and leaves. Seeds from fruit will produce another plant and taking leaves encourages plant growth.
2. Foods such as milk and honey which do not take life nor do they create it.
3. Parasitic food such as blood and plant sap.
3. Food that take life such and meat and whole plants.

It is also interesting to note that humans, cats and horses all have the same digestive system; small bowel, appendix, large bowel. And enlarged appendix enable the horse to be a complete herbivore and the presence of an appendix in cats means they were once herbivore and come become herbivores in the future.

Thanks for the biology lesson, no1nose.

You asked for it my friend:liturgy:
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
297
✟30,402.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
A lot of successful idea have been wrong haven't they. The point isn't that its too simple. Instead it is incomplete.
In what way, specifically? Let's cut the philosophical and get down to brass tacks. Let's talk biology. How is evolutionary theory incomplete and how does its incompleteness make it wrong?

I don't think I said that
You didn't say it. But it necessarily follows from everything you've said so far. Many interesting consequences follow from anti-evolutionary/concordist creationism, though its proponents are usually unwilling to go there.

It is also interesting to note that humans, cats and horses all have the same digestive system; small bowel, appendix, large bowel. And enlarged appendix enable the horse to be a complete herbivore and the presence of an appendix in cats means they were once herbivore and come become herbivores in the future.
Sounds like a great argument for common descent!
 
Upvote 0

no1nose

Junior Member
Jan 2, 2006
200
7
North Island
Visit site
✟22,865.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In what way, specifically? Let's cut the philosophical and get down to brass tacks. Let's talk biology. How is evolutionary theory incomplete and how does its incompleteness make it wrong?

Right, lets get on the the real stuff!!! You go first boss- shoot
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
297
✟30,402.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Right, lets get on the the real stuff!!! You go first boss- shoot
You're the one hung up over evolution. And since evolution is the working model among biologists, the onus is on you to explain what evidence it does not account for and what model does a better job of tying it all together.
(But for what it's worth, I leave tomorrow for a 3-day research trip, so I likely won't be around to reply for a few days.)
 
Upvote 0

no1nose

Junior Member
Jan 2, 2006
200
7
North Island
Visit site
✟22,865.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You're the one hung up over evolution. And since evolution is the working model among biologists, the onus is on you to explain what evidence it does not account for and what model does a better job of tying it all together.
(But for what it's worth, I leave tomorrow for a 3-day research trip, so I likely won't be around to reply for a few days.)


The topic here is "Math logic disproves Evolution" Let's talk about that.
 
Upvote 0

Jester4kicks

Warning - The following may cause you to think
Nov 13, 2007
1,555
127
43
✟24,959.00
Faith
Taoist
Marital Status
Single
The topic here is "Math logic disproves Evolution" Let's talk about that.

Really? I thought it was "Darwin's Debt to Christianity"....
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7245202


You know... since you've been posting the EXACT same comments there as you have here. In some cases you actually copy/pasted the same comment you posted in one thread, into the other thread, one minute later.

At least now I know why a lot of your comments over there weren't making much sense. ^_^^_^^_^^_^
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The only way to get in touch with reality is through revelation. Revelation blows us out of the rut that we are in and gets us in touch with what is real. In regard then to evolution my point is that it is an observational and experimental framework built on the foundation of Biblical revelation. As such it is not be trusted or “believed” in[/SIZE][/FONT]

I think you have some valid points, but need to fine tune them. The Bible reveals God created a uniform world that can be understood through observation and extrapolation. Indeed science has thrived in christian cultures because the Bible lays the presuppositional foundations for inductive reasoning. I also believe observation alone lays the foundations for induction. Paul seems to grasp this idea in Romans 1, where he claims that reasoning about the cosmos can lead one to the existence of God, and to some things about His nature.

But you are right that some things can only come via revelation and this is where many scientifically minded people stumble. Not every cause in the universe is uniform.
 
Upvote 0

no1nose

Junior Member
Jan 2, 2006
200
7
North Island
Visit site
✟22,865.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Bible lays the presuppositional foundations for inductive reasoning. I also believe observation alone lays the foundations for induction.

The problem with the Theory of Evolution is that the theory itself lacks a mathematical foundation. As such the Theory cannot be verified by empirical means. The empirical science that is often associated with evolution really exists independent of the Theory of Evolution and would be equally valid if the Theory of Evolution were to completely disappear. So like the coffee cup in one’s mind that is as good as it gets for this theory

Incompleteness Thought Experiment. (please try this yourselves)

Sitting on the table before me is a coffee cup. I now close my eyes and try to picture the cup. As I try to picture the cup within my mind I notice that I can only hold the image of the cup for a short time and that the image that I imagine is different than what I see when I look at the cup. The image of the cup that I imagine is static in time and more two dimensional than three. I cannot imagine the whole cup but only a view of it. Clearly the cup that exists in my mind is a distorted representation of the cup on the table. The cup in my mind is made up from my observations of the cup on the table. But the cup in my mind is not the same as the cup on the table. The cup on the table exists in real time and space while the cup in my mind exists in an entirely different way that is not a true representation.

I now take a pen and paper and attempt to describe the cup. However, hard I try my description will be of the cup that is in my imagination and not the actual cup itself. This then is the problem with any description of nature based on observations. With the aid on mathematics we can describe some aspects of the cup and make predications based on laws of nature. But in the case of Evolution there are no mathematical measures inherit in its theory. This being the case we are left with only the distorted images in our minds to use as a basis for a written description of the natural world and how it works.

This was what Darwin faced when he set out to describe nature with the Theory of Evolution. Besides working with observations based on distorted images he needed a scenario or outline that would make sense of his observations. This is where he turned to Christian beliefs. In Christianity there is the idea that some survive and some become “extinct”. There is also the idea that changing one’s nature is the key to survival. This fit well with his observations and with a few adaptations became the Theory of Evolution.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The problem with the Theory of Evolution is that the theory itself lacks a mathematical foundation. As such the Theory cannot be verified by empirical means. The empirical science that is often associated with evolution really exists independent of the Theory of Evolution and would be equally valid if the Theory of Evolution were to completely disappear. So like the coffee cup in one’s mind that is as good as it gets for this theory

Incompleteness Thought Experiment. (please try this yourselves)

Sitting on the table before me is a coffee cup. I now close my eyes and try to picture the cup. As I try to picture the cup within my mind I notice that I can only hold the image of the cup for a short time and that the image that I imagine is different than what I see when I look at the cup. The image of the cup that I imagine is static in time and more two dimensional than three. I cannot imagine the whole cup but only a view of it. Clearly the cup that exists in my mind is a distorted representation of the cup on the table. The cup in my mind is made up from my observations of the cup on the table. But the cup in my mind is not the same as the cup on the table. The cup on the table exists in real time and space while the cup in my mind exists in an entirely different way that is not a true representation.

I now take a pen and paper and attempt to describe the cup. However, hard I try my description will be of the cup that is in my imagination and not the actual cup itself. This then is the problem with any description of nature based on observations. With the aid on mathematics we can describe some aspects of the cup and make predications based on laws of nature. But in the case of Evolution there are no mathematical measures inherit in its theory. This being the case we are left with only the distorted images in our minds to use as a basis for a written description of the natural world and how it works.

This was what Darwin faced when he set out to describe nature with the Theory of Evolution. Besides working with observations based on distorted images he needed a scenario or outline that would make sense of his observations. This is where he turned to Christian beliefs. In Christianity there is the idea that some survive and some become “extinct”. There is also the idea that changing one’s nature is the key to survival. This fit well with his observations and with a few adaptations became the Theory of Evolution.

Not sure how this addresses my comments. Logic and science are two distinct things. Math falls under the category of logic. Science is a methodology which is based on many of the presuppositions you allude to, such as accuracy of the sense. And many of our logical deduction are based on the same. But I don't see how you are targeting evolution (and I'm not an evolutionist) and not everything else. Ultimately, you cannot prove you are even speaking with anyone in a forum. You could be the only aware being in existence and simply dreaming. What I don't get is how you are using this to pinpoint your reject of evolution.
 
Upvote 0

Jester4kicks

Warning - The following may cause you to think
Nov 13, 2007
1,555
127
43
✟24,959.00
Faith
Taoist
Marital Status
Single
Not sure how this addresses my comments. Logic and science are two distinct things. Math falls under the category of logic. Science is a methodology which is based on many of the presuppositions you allude to, such as accuracy of the sense. And many of our logical deduction are based on the same. But I don't see how you are targeting evolution (and I'm not an evolutionist) and not everything else. Ultimately, you cannot prove you are even speaking with anyone in a forum. You could be the only aware being in existence and simply dreaming. What I don't get is how you are using this to pinpoint your reject of evolution.

Don't try to make sense of it... he's been copy/pasting the same bunch of garbage in this thread and over in the other thread: http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=47460883&posted=1#post47460883

It's pretty obvious that he doesn't have the faintest clue about what he's trying to prove.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.