EVOLUTION vs CREATIONISM

[Tiassa]

Something about observational method, I think

Wow, Dan ... check in on history:

And the philosophy of evolution (which is what I've been talking about from the beginning) has been used to justify and promote slavery and social injustice throughout the world.

As if God hasn't? Encomienda, prayer towns ... hell, Dan, there's a topic on salvation I've posted that includes notions on God being a Lord and we humans his serfs. I'm pretty sure it wasn't evolutionists in the prohibition clubs pushing laws to make it illegal to sell liquor to Native Americans in Tacoma. I see very few atheist-evolutionists persecuting Jews. People will wreck anything to suit their undereducated needs, and that's the point. But the very best your point can be for you is the grub calling the maggot white.

It takes away from the way people value life by assuming it is simpler than it actually is (Darwin believed cells were little bags of water) and assuming life is just some sort of cosmic accident.

You know, 97% of your body is water, so technically Darwin was right, but just not in an applicable sense. It's a better shot than spirits, humors, and incubi. And I'm going to boldface this so you have it absolutely, positively clear:

* Evolution does not assume Life as a cosmic accident. Specifically, from what we can tell of our Universe, the odds of Life developing indicate a probable statistic necessity for the arrival of humanity in the Universe.

A cosmic accident is a bitter assumption of disillusioned faithful not wanting to accept that they aren't the center of God's attention 24-6. (Gotta keep that Sabbath, y'know.)

To keep increasing a theory when the evidence makes it more and more improbable (through the study of biochemistry) is dishonest.

* Demonstrate that dishonesty.

* Why do Creationists always decry the transience of the scientific process? I wonder about your fixed faith in God, if maybe the idea of living transition escapes the faithful?

that something new has to be thought up.

I'm always up for new theories; it keeps us from backsliding into religious quagmires.

What is most valuable about the Bible, is that the order is the same as cosmology, paleontology, and archeology have dsicovered. Nothing else comes close.

Sounds to me like you think you've got a demonstrable assertion here ... construct your thesis. And for the time being, I'll even grant you the a priori that God exists, since I'd love to see what theory you can offer without worrying about the fact that it cant get off the ground for its undemonstrable a priori.

Even scientists themselves before Hubble were real sticks in the mud about the universe always existing.

In Hubble's day, the Mandelbrot hadn't been realized yet. What that is intended to demonstrate is that much has changed about what we can observe, postulate, and demonstrate about the Universe. Old descriptions such as raisin-cake still suffice for 100-level University physics surveys, but it was cutting edge then. It has to do with observational methods, and, yes, occasinally something gets thrown out and replaced: it's called learning. Were you born with everything you needed to know about living already in your brain? Were you fully cognizent and functional upon our arrival on the planet? If you were born and abandoned in the woods, you could get right up, walk back to civilization, and maybe kill yourself a b'ar on the way back to town?

Learning ... remember that?

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[dan1123]

I'm not talking about not learning. I'm talking about rejecting something out of hand because of what you believe to be true.

I don't care how many idiots you point out in Christianity because I can point out just as many acting out of secularist beliefs that you have demonstrated you yourself hold.

One question before I go into the order of the six days: If life was not a cosmic accident, and the entire universe is tuned to coming out to us as an eventuality, than who was the tuner? (and don't say that it just happened by chance or that there were a billion other universes that didn't make it because those are more unfounded than the existence of God).

Science:
So consider us at the Big Bang. We have a dark clutter of pre-subatomic particles because photons cannot even exist yet. Quark confinement has not yet been reached. And then it is reached. So much light is released that there is not one dark spot over the entire (very small at this point) universe. After a time, the universe expanded and the light emitting substances separated into what would become future galaxies.

Bible:
Genesis1:2 Now the earth was[1] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.

Science:
Galaxies, solar systems, and planets have formed, and one planet which has just the right conditions is encircling one star which is also just the right size and brightness. This planet is too hot for liquid water though, so it is covered in a permanent cloud layer like Venus, but this planet is cooling, and the first condensation occurs causing the first rain.

Bible:
Genesis1:6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day.

Science:
There was so much water that the earth was entirely covered. There wasn't enough cooling to form the polar ice caps, and not enough tectonic activity to form huge mountain ranges to jut above the water yet. But that was happening, and the water began to freeze in the ice caps, and the sea level dropped to reveal continents.

Bible:
Genesis 1:9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

Science:
At this time since the oceans had stopped boiling, bacterial and simple plantlife could begin to exist, and prepare the way for animal life. And it did start with a myriad of different plants that even began to populate the newly exposed land.

Bible:
Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the third day.

Science:
The sun at this time needed to increase in strength (by 30%). The greenhouse effect of its early planethood was reducing and would soon cause a global ice-age unless something else stared heating up. The greenhouse effect ending meant the clouds would finally part, and when they did, a full sky of sun, moon, and stars would be revealed for the first time.

Bible:
Genesis 1:14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the fourth day.

Science:
The Cambrian Explosion happens now. The oceans suddenly fill with all sorts of creatures, and insects fill the air.

Bible:
20
And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds [more accurately <i>winged creatures</i>] fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird [creature] according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds [winged creatures] increase on the earth." And there was evening, and there was morning--the fifth day.

Science:
After a few hundred million years land animals begin to appear. First reptiles and early mammals, then finally early humans.

Bible:
Genesis 1:24
And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth,[2] and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food." And it was so. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day.

The order matches with only slight explanation (mainly due to our distance from the culture and time it was written). This is <b>way</b> beyond what any other ancient document could hope for in terms of accuracy. All the others have incorrect underlying assumptions which make it impossible to reconcile with what we <i>know</i> to be true through science today. So were the people (or person) who wrote this simply a genius who could figure out the history of the planet, and universe (as well as particle physics) using 5,500 year old technology? Or was this person simply lucky?

 

[Cris]

Darwin was a Christian

Dan,

Darwin was a somewhat devout Christian and he was quite upset when he was accused of being against God after he published his book. He remained a strong Christian right up to his death. As a thorough scientist he could not ignore the evidence that he collected, but he did not see any conflict between Christianity and how species had evolved, at least in the sense that a god remained the originator or creator of the process. And most Christians around the world as well as the Pope accept this approach without any real trouble. It does of course mean that some early parts of the bible need to be interpreted differently and not quite so literally, and I hope you would agree that some parts of the bible are indeed intended as symbolic or instructive as opposed to factual. You seem to have some knowledge of biblical Hebrew in which case you will know that the Hebrew for Adam means ‘man’ as in mankind and did not refer to an individual. Here the symbology indicates that God created mankind, and that it was mankind that chose to be disobedient. I don’t think that genesis has to be taken so literally to be able to satisfy the Christian faith. An evolutionary process created by God that led to mankind would still satisfy the fundamentals of Christianity.

Darwin’s original theory was quite rudimentary and has now progressed far beyond those early times. It is no longer meaningful to call current evolution theory as belonging to Darwin. And I think he would be very dismayed at the small group of radical Americans who are insisting on an alternative literal interpretation of the bible. The world has moved on as have the vast majority of Christians.

The principle and proofs for evolutionary processes have been well established, and here I am not talking about THE theory of evolution. Many scientists in many fields can see how such processes cause adaptations, improvements, and massive changes over time. In the non-bio world we can see how the power of the computer chip has been evolving over time. Now you would argue that this has been under the control of intelligent direction. That is true and also explains why the progress has been extremely rapid. Non-directed evolutionary processes tend to take many thousands and millions of years. But there have been other bioprocesses that have evolved in our lifetime. The issues of mosquitoes and their adaptive resistance to toxins for eradicating malaria for example, and we know of numerous forms of bacteria that have evolved and adapted to our war on them using antibiotics, and we are in danger of losing that war.

Scientists know that mutations within DNA structures occur like clockwork. This is fact. We know that DNA forms a map for every living organism – this is fact. The DNA in every human has an identical structure to every living thing and differs only in size. This is fact. We know that mutations in DNA can cause serious harm to its host, and this is very common. Most mutations seem to have a null effect while others result in a positive benefit. These again are established facts of which you should not dispute. From here the next step is very obvious: The harmful mutations usually result in a less able organism and usually death, the positive mutations result in increased capability and greater ability to survive. This is very simply the survival of the fittest, and remains the underpinning of evolutionary processes.

There can be no doubt that evolutionary processes are acting upon every living organism; human, animal, plants, insects, etc., as well as many aspects of our social lives including technology, housing, transportation, etc.

We can safely assume that the human race in the past had to be different from us because their DNA would have had fewer mutations. As we go further back in the past then the differences would have been more pronounced. Going back even further then we begin to see so many differences as to constitute a different species. There can be no doubt of this since mutations do and have occurred, and are still occurring in humans.

Extraction of human DNA from tissues dating back many thousands of years has revealed an interesting pattern in human diversity. Sometime before 80,000 years ago the diversity was very large, e.g. DNA patterns were very different. During the period 80K and 70K years this diversity dwindled to almost nothing. This is being referred to as a DNA bottleneck period. If you search the web you should be able to find numerous variations on these findings. This link attributes this change to Volcanic eruption. The Toba volcano is thought to have erupted at around 75000 years ago, but this was a massive eruption that would represent a near extinction event. It is estimated that the human population was reduced to around 10,000 people only. This would explain the very small DNA diversity from samples for that period. Diversity has now increased since then.

Major near extinction events have been occurring for millions of years, the dinosaurs most probably became extinct from one of them and we nearly disappeared as well. It is certain that others will follow in the future. Our continued survival appears to depend on how fast we can evolve to discover methods for predicting such events or being able to survive them. These are natural events and attributing one of these to a supernatural cause has no basis in fact.

Time to stop rambling for a while.
Cris

 

[dan1123]

Um, I have heard differently about Darwin, but that was an aside anyway.

With the majority of what you said... well... why do I care? The earth is a few billion years old, the universe is 10 to 20 billion years old. Life adapts. It has to. What does that matter to philosophy? What matters is the uniqueness and sanctity of human life. What I'm against is the <i><b>philosophy</b></i> of evolution which removes both the uniqueness and sanctity of human life and tries to promote itself through the science of evolution and adaptation.

By the way, first of all, I am a computer engineering major. I have designed a microprocessor from the gates up. I have studied the most recent fare from AMD (sledgehammer). There is nowhere near the complexity in these as the brain of a slug. currently computers have the brainpower of a few mosquitos. We are so many orders of magnitude away from making a computer with the processing power that a common squirrel has that it's ridiculous. Those who believe we have computers as complex as the human brain severely underestimated the brain.

 

[Cris]

A simpler view

Dan,

Your hypothesis that the genesis story is supported by science can also be purely coincidental. Consider those living at the time that genesis was written and the extent of their knowledge.

Shamanism, superstition, polytheism, were all rife. Out of this we can surmise the creation of a monotheist concept where the deity was responsible for everything. This would have been seen as both simple and elegant and quite appealing. So how would these early philosophers have constructed a creation story for this single deity?

Simple observations of the major features of the world present the most obvious starting points. Clearly the earth had to have been created. The heavens had to be there because that is where one goes after death – the basis for every religion, but of course, to be consistent the deity would have to create heaven as well. Then they knew there was day and night and could easily surmise that before there was any light everything would have been dark so the deity would have had to have created the light and separate it from the darkness. They would have been able to see that there were many animals of all types and many forms of plant life. So of course the deity would have to create these. But what did the god look like? Without any concept of aliens but knowing that humans were clearly more advanced than any stupid animal then why shouldn’t the deity look like humans, and without any other frame of reference this would seem an easy and obvious choice, why even all the polytheist gods had human images. And a destructive flood? We have major floods today and they cause massive destruction. In those early times with poor house construction major floods would have been devastating. These early people also had a narrow view of the known world; it wasn’t very big at that time. Major floods stretching for many miles would have seemed like the whole world was covered. So adding in a flood scenario where many if not nearly all died was another easy construct, and of course the deity was responsible for everything including floods.

And people, of course, had to come from somewhere. They had a pretty good grasp that it took two people to create a third and they could easily surmise that at some point there must have been an original two. They did have mathematics at that time and weren’t stupid. What they lacked was any notion of evolutionary processes, so it was inevitable that their only possible conclusion was that the human race started from an original two and of course the deity would have to have created them.

All those early bible stories can easily be seen as imaginative myths created by individuals of the time who were intelligent but had no knowledge of modern scientific principles and processes such as evolution. With no other knowledge to guide them as to how the world was created and with gods being a familiar belief then it was inevitable that such myths would have been created.

Had there been any true knowledge in the bible then it might have begun something like this –

In the beginning there was a void and God created the Big Bang. In the second period and within this maelstrom he created matter and energy. In the third period he created galaxies. In the forth period he created planets including the earth. In the fifth period he created life. In the sixth period he saw that life had evolved into mankind. In the seventh period he rested and watched mankind evolve into a super-intelligent race that eventually transformed itself into a single individual and became his equal and thus his new eternal companion.

Have fun
Cris

 

[dan1123]

Uh, huh... coincidental... if it is coincidental then why are there <i><B>no other</i></B> religions or ancient origin stories that assume the creation of the universe? It is far easier to imagine multiple, more human-like gods with faults and who battle rather than the elegance of a singular God who requires so much of His people.

In the beginning there was a void and God created the Big Bang. In the second period and within this maelstrom he created matter and energy. In the third period he created galaxies. In the forth period he created planets including the earth. In the fifth period he created life. In the sixth period he saw that life had evolved into mankind. In the seventh period he rested and watched mankind evolve into a super-intelligent race that eventually transformed itself into a single individual and became his equal and thus his new eternal companion.

1) There was no such concept about the Big Bang until recently. Words have to come from concepts, and the words used in the Bible are kept to a minimum so that it could be preserved in the millenia before information could be copied mechanically.

2) The concepts in physics of matter and energy as generic terms had no conceptual match until last century.

3) It was not God's place to reveal what we could find through scientific discovery. If God did not want us to discover things on our own, then why would He make so much to discover and give us the desire and pleasure in discovering things?

4) Other vocabulary you use represents concepts that rest on centuries of discovery and technology. The concepts need to exist before words do.

Don't be so arrogant. Genesis has an adequate description that was not obvious at all as evidenced by the religions and stories coming out at the time. Considering the audience it spoke to, I believe it did an excellent job.

 

[Cris]

Dan,

You have missed my point by quite a margin. And lighten up a little bit; my fictional proposed new beginning story was meant as humor. But I’ll add some smilies next time. I’m not being combative here, just debating.

The genesis story was written based on the perceptions and knowledge of the people of the time, as you have also indicated. And as you also point out and which I am demonstrating is that they couldn’t know how life came into existence because they had no knowledge of evolution. Their ignorance meant that they wrote a fictional story about Adam and Eve since they could not deduce that we evolved from simpler forms, but that was the best they could do.

.. why are there no other religions or ancient origin stories that assume the creation of the universe?

I’m not sure that there aren’t any others. Read ‘A History of God by Karen Armstrong’. She shows that there were a number of early religions who supported monotheism, long before polytheism arrived. The most common of these religions had a Sky God or Sun God, and each God was responsible for the creation and control of everything. Parts of these early mythologies continued for a long time and we can trace most of the Christian mythologies to these earlier myths.

But look at your logic: You seem to be implying that since the bible stories were the first to describe a monotheistic creator then that uniqueness must make the story true. I can use the same logic to state that since Darwin was the first to propose a new evolution theory then that theory must be true.

Yes I suspect the genesis story was considered very good when it was introduced. But even if it was a unique concept, that does not contribute to its validity.

Cris

 

[Cris]

Dan,

What matters is the uniqueness and sanctity of human life. What I'm against is the <i><b>philosophy</b></i> of evolution which removes both the uniqueness and sanctity of human life and tries to promote itself through the science of evolution and adaptation.

OK I understand.

But you have to be wrong in your conclusion. You are assuming that since God created man then man has not changed and he will not change in the future. I base this on the Christian assertion that man was created in the image of God and God is immutable (does not change), hence man cannot change.

But we know as fact that DNA, all DNA, human and otherwise mutates. As we proceed into the future man has no option but to have his DNA continue to mutate. He has no choice but to change. Disregarding new technologies and medical science for the moment, in say 50,000 years time man is likely to have mutated into a different species as compared to today. This is inevitable. However, if we add in technology and medical science then we can see that we can intelligently control our own DNA and change ourselves very rapidly. I.e. Human evolution ceases to be random but becomes intelligently directed.

By the way, first of all, I am a computer engineering major. I have designed a microprocessor from the gates up. I have studied the most recent fare from AMD (sledgehammer). There is nowhere near the complexity in these as the brain of a slug. currently computers have the brainpower of a few mosquitos. We are so many orders of magnitude away from making a computer with the processing power that a common squirrel has that it's ridiculous. Those who believe we have computers as complex as the human brain severely underestimated the brain.

Good for you. Hmm, oh well what the heck – I built my first logic circuits at age 13, using discrete components (1965), there were no chips then. A few years later I designed a unique 4 bit ALU. I was in heaven with TTL. I currently manage a department of senior designers at Compaq. We are now transforming our high end MIPs based and Alpha based systems to use the Intel Itanium family. Let me know when you have your PhD and I’ll give you an interview.

As for machine intelligence you should read some of my posts in the Intelligence and Machines forum. You are right that current computing power just about equals that of an insect. To equal the human brain I estimate we would need the computing power of about 100,000,000 1GHz CPUs. If Moore’s law holds then that power should be available in a single chip around 2030. I know, I know there are a few technology barriers to break through first, but see the work being done at Carnegie Melon and the papers written by Hans Moravec, these are not insurmountable. Intel also has a 50-year roadmap – nice.

But, the point is that evolutionary processes exist everywhere. In computing, despite its current primitive state, we have progressed from vacuum tube based flip-flops for simple arithmetic to the intelligence of an insect in 50 years. Moore’s law has been maintained for that entire period. Human brain equivalent processing power is very likely to be with us within the next 100 years, and there is every indication it will be very much sooner. If you would like to dispute this or take this further then we should continue this in the IM forum.

Cris

 

[dan1123]

To equal the human brain I estimate we would need the computing power of about 100,000,000 1GHz CPUs. If Moore’s law holds then that power should be available in a single chip around 2030.

You should know that the main power that the brain has over the current computing and microprocessor concept (instruction sets are a small matter in this topic) is the <i>interconnectedness</i> of the brain. The power to connect so many paths and <i>change</i> their connections is far beyond what we have in silicon. It may be that in order to achieve this power that the brain posesses we need to make something little different from the brain we posess.

But even if we can make something as complex as ourselves, it just shows that an intelligent being can make a complex machine. We know that. What you need to try and prove is that <I>natural</I> processes can bring about a complex machine. What I would like to see in a lab is a unicellular organism evolve into a new species of multicellular organism. If that can be done, and the process explained (so it isn't a hoax or fluke) then I'll take another look at the science. Biologists right now understand so little that it's best to look at other things, and not get mired down in speculative philosophy.

 

[Cris]

Dan,

A single silicon chip for brain equivalence? Yes most unlikely, the physics won’t allow it. But the brain is massively parallel; so many high power interconnected silicon chips might do the job. The Itanium for example has greater effective power than the Pentium 4 but the clock speed is lower, the Itanium has increased on-chip parallelism. This is the direction for Intel where SMPs are not so vital. Dual SMP capable Itanium will not be far away. However, this is a digression, even though interesting.

But even if we can make something as complex as ourselves, it just shows that an intelligent being can make a complex machine. We know that. What you need to try and prove is that <I>natural</I> processes can bring about a complex machine.

Yup I agree.

What I would like to see in a lab is a unicellular organism evolve into a new species of multicellular organism. If that can be done, and the process explained (so it isn't a hoax or fluke) then I'll take another look at the science.

I don’t know that that hasn’t been done. I’ll have to look. But otherwise I agree with the test.

Perhaps more importantly I would like to see scientists create the original conditions in the lab that gave rise to the first life form, and then show it can be done without a supernatural cause. Until that is achieved we are left with an unknown – we do not know how life started, anything we say is conjecture, and I am including religion here.

Biologists right now understand so little that it's best to look at other things, and not get mired down in speculative philosophy.

OK but it is science that provides us with facts. We can look elsewhere but without factual evidence we will be left with nothing other than hypotheses. Perhaps we should just be patient – ah but human nature doesn’t like being patient, does it?

Cris

 

[dan1123]

OK but it is science that provides us with facts. We can look elsewhere but without factual evidence we will be left with nothing other than hypotheses.

True, but the scientific method begins with a hypothesis, and out presuppositions create the hypothesis.

Therefore my interest in the philosophy of evolution.

By the way, TTL is too power-hungry. Everyone's interested in CMOS and its derivatives now.

 

[Tiassa]

A simple experiment

Dan, I propose a simple experiment which you can perform:

* Go find the tallest building in your town and jump off.

Hypothesis: I assert that when you leap from the building, you will descend toward the Earth accellerating in accord with gravitational law at 9.8 m/s/s until you reach your terminal velocity or strike the ground first. This experiment, unfortunately, will likely injure, maim, or even kill you.

But we cannot be sure, for after all, 'tis only a hypothesis. Just because gravitational accelleration is demonstrable on paper doesn't mean it will hold up in reality, right? Who's to say you won't fly off to Neptune and share hookah hits with Zoogs?

It is my presupposition that you will plummet to your injury or death. It is not my presupposition that you will fly off to Neptune. Now, we can observe and demonstrate the legitimacy of those presuppositions which rest on other principles.

Anything you see in science as a presupposition can be tested; in the meantime, if it seems that pure a presupposition, take a look at the concepts it rests on. It might be that nobody's built the machine to test it; the supercolliders of the 1980's gave us the data to theorize things we saw in the '90s, but the technology isn't quite there to test the next round of theses. Ooh, so we have to wait a couple of years. But when scientists set out after a theoretical particle, they're fairly confident because without something to occupy this proposed spot in nature, the rest would not function properly.

I rest on my presupposition that you would plummet to your injury or death if you leapt from the tallest building in town on the observation that if gravitational accelleration was not well-documented and functionally accurate, well, baseball would look a lot different; so would hopscotch.

But the presuppositions are demonstrable, and carry the credibility of validation among the scientific community; remember Cold Fusion? Why don't we have cold fusion generators everywhere? Because nobody could reproduce the effect, and the result was deemed either erroneous by method or fraudulent by intent. I do not recall hearing much from that scientific team lately, either. So I wouldn't worry too much about presuppositions until they can't be demonstrated. You know, things like All dark-skinned people are oversexed, drug-addicted thieves, or God created the Universe in six days. I can produce books to claim either, but neither can be demonstrated in the present, and neither can be demonstrated in history or science without a massive exscinding of selected data.

Presuppositions are meant to be resolved. Unless, of course, they are specifically designed to never be resolved. But that's the problem of the person holding the presupposition.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[dan1123]

I have a posit for you. Kill yourself. If you meet God, then you can tell Him "hi".

Your extremist statement that if I don't accept that all the universe just happened by chance, then I have rejected all of science shows just how much dogma you are into. I'm drawing the most obvious conclusion from the generally accepted notions of science that the universe was prepared for life in the way that we are. To try and say that there must exist some huge number of universes outside of ours is at least as convoluted and undemonstrable as an intelligent being outside the universe creating it all.

 

[Tiassa]

Bitter beer face, Dan?

Your extremist statement that if I don't accept that all the universe just happened by chance, then I have rejected all of science shows just how much dogma you are into.

Please support your assertion, specifically the part I've boldfaced above.

I have a posit for you. Kill yourself. If you meet God, then you can tell Him "hi".

There's no working thesis there. It's just sarcasm. Something about science?

I'm drawing the most obvious conclusion from the generally accepted notions of science that the universe was prepared for life in the way that we are.

The most obvious conclusion, then, being that since you can't figure it out, there must be a God behind it? I just don't understand why humans have to be the center of the Universe, or of God's attention, or whatever. "Prepared for life in the way that we are," though, is functionally correct. We have evolved as we must according to the conditions of the Universe. Don't worry, you can still believe that God made man in "His own image" if you like, and it won't actually get in the way of anything scientific, unless you're out to pick a bone with women since "His own image" implies a male, and therefore contributory living element. The most obvious conclusion, then, is that there is a factor undemonstrable and therefore not included that makes the whole theory work the way you suppose it should? That's not science, it's superstition.

To try and say that there must exist some huge number of universes outside of ours is at least as convoluted and undemonstrable as an intelligent being outside the universe creating it all.

I admit the multiuniverse model is attractive from a philosophical point of view, but this seems ... a little irrelevant to the present debate? I don't recall speculating on the multiuniverse anytime recently. Please, fill me in.

In the meantime, take your bitterness and can it. Think about the things you're saying. Your zeal to turn a phrase cleverly leaves you sounding embittered and pathetic. As I see it, the Creationist theories generally rail against scientific concepts for their sense of speculation: well, we can formulate gravity and say it must work this way, but with more complex formulae, you must keep in mind that the developing minds aren't going to find a billion dollars in construction and testing money unless each principle leading up to the hypothesis has a certain sense of credibility, such as we award gravitational theory. If you're upset about presuppositions that can be tested, test them. Hence, the gravity example. But since you seem to find it unpalatable, I don't know what to tell you. I've offered you a test of a presupposition based on prior observation and record, and all you've done is gotten all hissy about it. Calm down, and have faith in God to prove your righteousness before all of Creation.

--Tiassa

 

[Sir. Loone]

Ape image vs God's image

The thing on the sill is your 'familiar', and it can hurt you and others, so be careful Tiassa! There is none here, but the Lord is my rock fortress in a weird-weary land of the 'confused.'

Better to be created in the image of the Almighty and Loving caring GOD, then to be a chance through back of some anthropoid that was an extinct ape from the primordial ooze! You 'OOZE' you lose! 'The truth ye shell meet and it isn't very sweet!' (someone said other then me)

 

[dan1123]

But we cannot be sure, for after all, 'tis only a hypothesis. Just because gravitational accelleration is demonstrable on paper doesn't mean it will hold up in reality, right? Who's to say you won't fly off to Neptune and share hookah hits with Zoogs?

This is your condescending sarcasm that I was responding to. It's the extremist statement that shows how much you're into atheist egoistic dogma.

I bought out the multiverse theory because that is the only way that you can have your probability work in a system where there is only one roll of the dice. Shoveling another load of "it all just happened by chance" onto the rest of the chances within the universe looks far more desparate to me than an intelligent being forming the entire thing (and then telling people how it happened far before they had the science to discover it for themselves)

So take <i>your</i> condescention and can it. Or if you can't take the heat--get out of the kitchen and go back to your sheltered world of atheists patting each other on the back.

 

[Caleb]

Now, now, lets all try to not criticize each other too much. Since this thread is kinda long already and seems to be quickly degrading into a fire-fight, I've started a new thread "You want Evidence? How's this?"

Enjoy.

~Caleb

 

[Tiassa]

You're partway right, Loone

Loone,

Tiassa's signature quote:...there's a hungry thing waiting on the sill; it wants to know who to kill ....

The thing on the sill is your 'familiar', and it can hurt you and others, so be careful Tiassa! (Sir Loone, 7/17/2001)

You're partway right, but not entirely. It is not my familiar, for you have demonstrated no knowledge whatsoever of familiars. But that thing is, indeed, familiar to me. That hungry thing on the sill is the shadow of the Christian spirit.

Whence comes the peace so boldly promised in the lore? Quoth the Shadow, Nevermore.

--Tiassa

 

[Tiassa]

Sarcasm?

Whatever you say, Dan. After all, you believe in Jesus, so you can't be wrong, right?

Tell me, Dan, what is sarcastic about the scientific assertion that when you jump off the top of the tallest building in your town, you will most likely--based upon prior observational and formulaic work--plummet to your death? Seems rather sound to me. It's also fair enough to say, based upon prior observational and formulaic work, that you will not be smoking hits with Zoogs after leaping from the building.

It seems you've missed the point, Dan. Consider your own complaint, Dan, about science: True, but the scientific method begins with a hypothesis, and out presuppositions create the hypothesis.

All I have done is presented you with a hypothesis based on presuppositions derived from prior observation and formulaic endeavor.

I bought out the multiverse theory because that is the only way that you can have your probability work in a system where there is only one roll of the dice. Shoveling another load of "it all just happened by chance" onto the rest of the chances within the universe looks far more desparate to me than an intelligent being forming the entire thing (and then telling people how it happened far before they had the science to discover it for themselves)

So you invented a windmill to tilt because you cannot understand the notion of infinity? Ah, wait ... that's right, you can't imagine infinity and call it an assumption, though I wonder what it means for your God to be finite. Do I assert that the Living Endeavor happened by chance? I believe I call the Living Endeavor a statistical necessity, which does not indicate a high degree of "chance". And I respect your advisement that it's too hard for you to view the world without superstition: it's okay if you need God to make it make sense, that's what God was invented for.

So take your condescention and can it. Or if you can't take the heat--get out of the kitchen and go back to your sheltered world of atheists patting each other on the back.

Testy, testy ... it seems to me you're the one bemoaning your own lack of perception. Quit your whining or take your own advice. Just because you have no legitimate response to the issues at hand does not mean that you can simply invent a perspective and place it upon your opponent in order to pat your own self on the back for your rhetorical brilliance.

Condescending ... ha! I'm not the one compelled by fancy to go around declaring people unfit to exist as God made them. So I guess you're not being condescending either, for how can you be condescending toward God? Your questioning of his judgement, though, seems haughty and designed to reinforce your own flagging self-esteem. Just because you see yourself as a sinner in need of a miracle does not mean that it's a good idea for everyone to hamstring themselves this way. We might as well just drink the Kool-Aid, then.

--Tiassa

 

[dan1123]

it's okay if you need God to make it make sense, that's what God was invented for.

hmm, then do <a href="http://www.jps.net/bygrace/apologetics/quotes.html">these people</a> need God as a crutch? Or to turn it the other way, why would they even consider God if science has such a great possibility of explaining everything without Him?

Name one thing that scientists consider infinite today. This universe did not exist forever, there are no new galaxies being created so that it will last forever. Its size has been mapped out, and the galaxies at its edges have been found. We have reached limits in how small things can be, how cold things can get, how fast things can go, so where are all your infinities? Face it. We are in a finite universe where upper and lower limits abound.