Rational Creationism

[TheVisitor]

There are only 2 rational explanations for how God created the Universe.

Option #1.
Around 14 billion years ago God created the Universe - He did it using physical processes and set all of the physical laws and rules in place for it to work just fine without him...


Option 2.
Around 6 thousand years ago God created the entire universe in 6 days - however he created it to look much older...

I believe there is a third option.

Option #3
God did just what you said in option #1.
The Bible is about Adam's creation in the image of God...after this period.
The world in Genesis started with the world covered with water, from a previous destruction.
The six thousand year period is only from that time forward to Adam, because the Bible is about Adam - a son of God.

This is about the creation of God in this realm.
Adam was not just a man. He was a son of God, a order of life higher than the angels.
But he fell and lost the rights to this world.
Jesus bought back the rights to it.

Satan attempting to bring this plan to an end, just played into God's hands by providing the adversity to mold the character of God into His children.
This third option explains why a six thousand year period is mentioned but the earth is much older.

Don't take what theologians tell you the Bible says...
They have all interpreted it wrong.
Some hit and miss, but for the most part wrong.

Don't take what the scientist's tell you they see in nature as the whole story either...
They have left out much about our history.
They hit and miss, and discover much that is true.
But they have only scratched the surface of what's there is to know.

The truth is seldom found to be in one extreme or the other...
It is usually somewhere in between resting in a perfect balance of both sides.
That is where you'll find Option #3.

 

[lightgigantic]

on second thoughts nature (biology at least) does have redundancy built into it - its a process called evolution - enabling life to persist throughout drastic environmental changes and across highly variable environmental clines - of course we know intelligence is absent from evolution so the conclusion is still the same - teleology is wishful thinking

actually all we know is that human intelligence is not the driving force behind evolution ....

 

[synthesizer-patel]

actually all we know is that human intelligence is not the driving force behind evolution ....

In the sense that we cannot see anything that we are capable of recognising as intelligence as the driving force - and in the sense that we see it driven by natural forces then yes you are right.

But that just reaffirms my point - that a natural world that contains a God / was created through a divine act of the supernatural, is indistinguishable (as far as we are able to see) from a natural world from which God is entirely absent

 

[lightgigantic]

In the sense that we cannot see anything that we are capable of recognising as intelligence as the driving force - and in the sense that we see it driven by natural forces then yes you are right.

But that just reaffirms my point - that a natural world that contains a God / was created through a divine act of the supernatural, is indistinguishable (as far as we are able to see) from a natural world from which God is entirely absent

the "driving forces" behind evolution are seem to be branded with vague terms that bear no significance to an empirical model ("nature"?).

For instance if I was working with the idea that there was no central governing body in a country yet attributed the clean streets, and economical stability to chance or random acts of nature, I have not really established that there is no governing body in the region.

IOW its not clear how a greatly incomplete picture (or more precisely, a picture that remains incomplete by using a particular methodology exclusively) provides a suitable scenario for a "godless world".

 

[synthesizer-patel]

the "driving forces" behind evolution are seem to be branded with vague terms that bear no significance to an empirical model ("nature"?).

explain - what vague terms do you mean?

You're analogy didn't work for me - I couldn't make any sense of it

 

[lightgigantic]

explain - what vague terms do you mean?

well empirically speaking, what is "nature"?

You're analogy didn't work for me - I couldn't make any sense of it

In what ways is determining a godless world view on the strength of the ambiguity of "nature" (despite an obvious clue of order, design and function) any different from determining a national view of absolute anarchy (despite an obvious clue of order, design and function)?

 

[swarm]

Except for cases of human or other similar local design, there is no design in nature.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

well empirically speaking, what is "nature"?

In terms of biology it is the physical and biological environment.

In what ways is determining a godless world view on the strength of the ambiguity of "nature" (despite an obvious clue of order, design and function) any different from determining a national view of absolute anarchy (despite an obvious clue of order, design and function)?

There is no real order or design in nature - other than order at the molecular level in terms of predictable inter and intra molecular forces. Nature appears ordered because we have a tendency to look at it in terms of human timescales - over geological time it is anything but ordered - species come and go in eyeblinks - environments change sometimes drastically and unpredictably and new niches arise for evolution to catch up with and fill.
The changing environment acts upon the fundamental properties of dna replication to mutate - resulting in lie hanging on in there and adapting in often unpredictable (but not random) ways.

 

[lightgigantic]

In terms of biology it is the physical and biological environment.

sure, but calling that as a final cause for phenomena in an empirical model causes problems .... mainly due to its being unknowable and/or uncontainable.
IOW what is labeled "nature" is simply "what lies outside of the empirical model" ..... and it also happens to vastly over shadow the tiny metonymic slice of knowledge that empiricism accommodates.

There is no real order or design in nature - other than order at the molecular level in terms of predictable inter and intra molecular forces.

I am not sure I follow.
I don't understand how declaring that there is order at a molecular level somehow dismisses the notion of design (in fact I see it suggests the opposite)

Nature appears ordered because we have a tendency to look at it in terms of human timescales - over geological time it is anything but ordered - species come and go in eyeblinks - environments change sometimes drastically and unpredictably and new niches arise for evolution to catch up with and fill.

Given that there is more aspects of design in a single cell than the entire utilities structure of New York, this doesn't make sense.
I mean, do you find it tenable that the utility structure of NYC (roads, water, electricity, gas, drainage, etc) could manifest without intelligent direction, given enough time?

The changing environment acts upon the fundamental properties of dna replication to mutate - resulting in lie hanging on in there and adapting in often unpredictable (but not random) ways.

dna is but one small contribution to the world ... and even then, there is a big difference between life and the chemicals/information systems that life utilizes

 

[lightgigantic]

Except for cases of human or other similar local design, there is no design in nature.

meh

and humans are outside of nature?

 

[synthesizer-patel]

sure, but calling that as a final cause for phenomena in an empirical model causes problems .... mainly due to its being unknowable and/or uncontainable.
IOW what is labeled "nature" is simply "what lies outside of the empirical model" ..... and it also happens to vastly over shadow the tiny metonymic slice of knowledge that empiricism accommodates.

Nature is neither uncontainable, nor unknowable, nor does it reside outside of the empirical model. so your point falls falt

I am not sure I follow.
I don't understand how declaring that there is order at a molecular level somehow dismisses the notion of design (in fact I see it suggests the opposite)

why does say the predictable forming of hydrogen bonds in a protein or dna molecule infer design - its no more supernatural than a magnet attracting iron.

Given that there is more aspects of design in a single cell than the entire utilities structure of New York, this doesn't make sense.
I mean, do you find it tenable that the utility structure of NYC (roads, water, electricity, gas, drainage, etc) could manifest without intelligent direction, given enough time?

schoolboy error - tha analogy isn't too bad though - NY wasn't always a fully functioning big city - it started as a village / small settlement - slowly becoming more complex - certain utilities proved to be unsuccessful and died off - other were and were adopted and expanded.

dna is but one small contribution to the world ... and even then, there is a big difference between life and the chemicals/information systems that life utilizes

It is a huge contribution to the world - and some evolutionary theorists would disagree with your second point- the would describe life as the verhicle for DNA/genes rather than the other way around.

 

[lightgigantic]

Nature is neither uncontainable, nor unknowable, nor does it reside outside of the empirical model. so your point falls falt

if you are using the word "nature" to describe something that is containable and (completely) knowable, you must be working with a different definition than "the physical and biological environment".

What empirical disciplines have contained and removed all shadows of doubt within the physical and biological environment?

why does say the predictable forming of hydrogen bonds in a protein or dna molecule infer design - its no more supernatural than a magnet attracting iron.

and this dismisses the notion of design because .....?

schoolboy error - tha analogy isn't too bad though - NY wasn't always a fully functioning big city - it started as a village / small settlement - slowly becoming more complex - certain utilities proved to be unsuccessful and died off - other were and were adopted and expanded.

all with the contribution of intelligence of course ....

It is a huge contribution to the world

actually I meant to use the word "universe" rather than "world"

- and some evolutionary theorists would disagree with your second point- the would describe life as the verhicle for DNA/genes rather than the other way around.

the credibility of empiricism lies in its ability to reach a consensus

 

[synthesizer-patel]

if you are using the word "nature" to describe something that is containable and (completely) knowable, you must be working with a different definition than "the physical and biological environment".

No

What empirical disciplines have contained and removed all shadows of doubt within the physical and biological environment?

The Theory of Evolution would be one - and we're doing fine on the rest considering the lack of funding and time we've had - to suggest we can't is a tired old god of the gaps fallacy

and this dismisses the notion of design because .....?

I said it makes no implication of design - there is none to be seen either directly though our senses or when our senses are heightened with instumentation - and more importantly design isn't needed for it to work - if its not there then that means it isn't there.

all with the contribution of intelligence of course ....

Which is where your analogy falls apart as analogies so often do - I only said it wasn't bad - not good. I ran within becuase of your implied notion that the city had come into being fully formed with complex structures and processes already in place - in that sense the analogy works well as a comparison with life and nature - as cities don't form like that and neither does complex life / complex biochemical processes etc - and of course most cities aren't designed - thery evolved ofver centuries - in some cases millennia.

The credibility of empiricism lies in its ability to reach a consensus

Poor assumption and wrong.

 

[swarm]

and humans are outside of nature?

I never said they were outside of nature. I said they were capable of design. Any animal capable of making choices is going to effect the design of the life it makes choices on, but humans are now able to directly design the DNA of plants and animals.

 

[lightgigantic]

The Theory of Evolution would be one - and we're doing fine on the rest considering the lack of funding and time we've had - to suggest we can't is a tired old god of the gaps fallacy

given that there exists no empirical evidence for the greater claims of the theory of evolution (particularly the anti-teleological variety) eg abiogeneis, genus swapping macro-evolution, etc, it appears to be a bad choice

I said it makes no implication of design - there is none to be seen either directly though our senses or when our senses are heightened with instumentation - and more importantly design isn't needed for it to work - if its not there then that means it isn't there.

wait up

let's back track this

If we cannot see it (with our current senses or instrumentation) it doesn't exist?

Which is where your analogy falls apart as analogies so often do - I only said it wasn't bad - not good. I ran within becuase of your implied notion that the city had come into being fully formed with complex structures and processes already in place - in that sense the analogy works well as a comparison with life and nature - as cities don't form like that and neither does complex life / complex biochemical processes etc - and of course most cities aren't designed - thery evolved ofver centuries - in some cases millennia.

so biochemically speaking, there is no reason why the utility structure of NYC could just evolve without intelligence, much like its much more complex and efficient counterpart, the cell?

Poor assumption and wrong.

not many heated arguments about the boiling point of water, eh?

 

[lightgigantic]

I never said they were outside of nature. I said they were capable of design. Any animal capable of making choices is going to effect the design of the life it makes choices on, but humans are now able to directly design the DNA of plants and animals.

and this establishes that there is no design in nature because?

 

[synthesizer-patel]

given that there exists no empirical evidence for the greater claims of the theory of evolution (particularly the anti-teleological variety) eg abiogeneis, genus swapping macro-evolution, etc, it appears to be a bad choice

abiogenesis isn't part of evolutionary theory - surprised no-one has ever explained that to you before.

Loads of evidence for consolodated microevolution across higher taxonomical levels - in fact in terms of fossil evidence that's mostly all we have - phyletic gradualism barely gets a look in.

It's pretty obvious that you don't have the faintest clue about evolution if I have to point out such basic stuff to you

wait up

let's back track this

If we cannot see it (with our current senses or instrumentation) it doesn't exist?

If we don't see (or detect may be a better word) it, AND it isn't a requirement (you missed that bit) - then yes - the answer is its not there.
A better example than a magnet is gravity - we have no requirement for a "Theory of Intelligent Falling"

so biochemically speaking, there is no reason why the utility structure of NYC could just evolve without intelligence, much like its much more complex and efficient counterpart, the cell?

That's fast becoming a really bad analogy that'll send you down way too many blind alleys - right now with your knowledge of evolition at an apparent zero - its probably best to discuss it directly.

not many heated arguments about the boiling point of water, eh?

Is that a pun?

 

[lightgigantic]

abiogenesis isn't part of evolutionary theory - surprised no-one has ever explained that to you before.

huh?
How do you propose to call upon evolution as a means to discredit the teleological argument without relying upon abiogenesis?

Loads of evidence for consolodated microevolution across higher taxonomical levels - in fact in terms of fossil evidence that's mostly all we have - phyletic gradualism barely gets a look in.

It's pretty obvious that you don't have the faintest clue about evolution if I have to point out such basic stuff to you

I don't think you understand

I am not contesting the claims that a milky sapped plant can give rise to another species of milky sapped plant.

I am contesting that this can be used to empirically establish suggestions or theories of movement from one genus to another (ie the wider claims of macroevolution). In fact it is commonly understood that testing such a claim is beyond the jurisdiction of empiricism
:shrug:

If we don't see (or detect may be a better word) it, AND it isn't a requirement (you missed that bit) - then yes - the answer is its not there.

Ok and to back track again, is there any further requirement for detection other than instrumentation and the senses?

A better example than a magnet is gravity - we have no requirement for a "Theory of Intelligent Falling"

yet we have a requirement for Newton ....

That's fast becoming a really bad analogy that'll send you down way too many blind alleys - right now with your knowledge of evolition at an apparent zero - its probably best to discuss it directly.

I gave a general outline about the general framework that macroevolution rests upon and you bog down the thread by discussing specifics of microevolution.

If you don't see a difference between calling upon the (empirical) evidence of B1 x time = B2 and extrapolating that to the non-evidenced (something for which there is no instrumentation or senses to detect ..... B1 x time x time x time = C1) no amount of microevolutionary discussion will be of any avail.

IOW its not so much a discussion of knowledge. Rather it is a discussion on the basis of which empiricism does and does not have credibility.

Is that a pun?

yes
but also it illustrates how the value of empirical claims lies in a consensus.

 

[swarm]

and this establishes that there is no design in nature because?

where did I say that?

Clearly we are designing things.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

huh?
How do you propose to call upon evolution as a means to discredit the teleological argument without relying upon abiogenesis?

you asked for a scientific theory that is in no doubt - I gave you one

I don't think you understand

I am not contesting the claims that a milky sapped plant can give rise to another species of milky sapped plant.

I am contesting that this can be used to empirically establish suggestions or theories of movement from one genus to another (ie the wider claims of macroevolution). In fact it is commonly understood that testing such a claim is beyond the jurisdiction of empiricism

I don't think you understand what macroevolution is.

Firstly I don't really like the term - nor do some other biologists.
For the reason that macroevolution and microevolution are essentially the same thing - same processes, same mechanism, same outcome - differentiating the two imples that there is some fundamental difference between how they work, when in fact macroevolution is simply microevolution + time.
That's why I used the term consolidated microevolution - I just made it up, but it is a more accurate descriptor to help you get the idea of why separating the two is a non discussion.

Secondly macroevolution is only evolution outside the level of species - so one population of milky sapped plants giving rise to two populations of milky sapped plants of the same genus but different species IS macroevolution.

Which leads us onto point 3 - another reason why I don't like the term is because it is used to shift the goalposts by creationists who both don't understand what it means, and change what it means when presented with evidence that fits their definition.
So when presented with evidence of evolution across higher taxonomical levels they shift the definition - show them evidence of the transitions between species of the same genus they ask for transistions between the orders and then classes ad absurdium - the evidence for it is so good the discussion gets reduced to nonsense like "show me nudibranchs giving birth to elephants!!!"

Ok and to back track again, is there any further requirement for detection other than instrumentation and the senses?

Dunno - suggest one - but if to the very best of our abilities the universe remains - whether created by god or not - indistinuishable from one which he is completely absent from

yet we have a requirement for Newton ....

Actually we don't - we only have a requirement that what he observed can be observed consistently

yes
but also it illustrates how the value of empirical claims lies in a consensus.

I'm still lost on this point you are trying to make - the only consesnus in the example you cite is a general consensus on the units of measurement - not the result or the factors that may effect the result.