|
2 registered members (AndrewAMD, NeoDumont),
761
guests, and 1
spider. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: Dan Silverman]
#69161
05/23/06 11:41
05/23/06 11:41
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
It is the concept that things may APPEAR older than they are because of the way that God created things. It is obvious that Adam, one minute after being created, was not a baby of only one minute in age (or a fetus, etc). It seems rather obvious that Adam was a full grown adult. As a result, if we were there and saw Adam we would assume he was maybe 20 or 30, but the fact would be that he was only moments old. Perhaps this is the case with the rest of creation as well
I haven't thought so far about Adam's age, but indeed, this sounds like a convincing argument for an apparent age of the creation. Since God certainly did not want to place Adam on a planet of liquid lava, he had also to create the earth with an initial age. Thus there is no reason to assume that this initial age was not consistent with the measured age of 4.55 billion years.
Quote:
As far as fossils there is a misconception. It has been reasoned that it takes a long, long time for fossils to form. However, when Mt. St. Helens errupted several years ago (was this in the 1980's?) and quickly laid down layers of ash scientists were excited to see what they would discover within. What they found surprised many of them. Animals that had been trapped in the ash were completely fossilized in under 4 months. Obviously the prossess of fossilization does not take very long periods to occur. I mention this only to state that this observation may lend credibility to the idea that the majority of the fossil record was created by the great Diluge (the flood of Noah) and thus the fossil record (and the strata they reside in) may not be as old as some think they are
Yes, the mere fact of fossilization is not a proof of the age of that fossil. (There is however one exception: fossils in amber. Amber needs millions of years to form from tree resin). Normally, fossils are not dated from themselves, but from stones or rocks found in the same strata.
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: jcl]
#69162
05/24/06 05:10
05/24/06 05:10
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Then I haven't understood the question. Insertion of foreign DNA from other species is a frequent mutation of bacteriae and virae
Yeah. Prewritten DNA. It didn't have to be somehow written from scratch. So it may technically be a mutation, but not the kind of mutation that evolution likes so much. I'm sure you understand the limitations on this kind of mutation. At best, what we'll end up with is a bunch of bacteria that all have the same resistances, but nothing more than the same bacteria they were to begin with. Let's say we pool all these bacteria together (basically putting a rush on what's happening now) and let them all share DNA at once. Its just going to reach equillibrium. Nothing new will be created from it.
Quote:
"Writing a DNA" by point mutations occurs in the way I described above, as an accumulation of beneficial mutations.
I'll have to disagree with this, but I don't have time to get into it tonight.
Quote:
Only confusion among creationists. For an average educated person with some mathematical background, thermodynamics is easy to understand.
I don't know, when I hear an evolutionist say that all it takes to create order is the addition of energy (from a debate) then I have to be skeptical about the idea that only creationists are confused.
Quote:
Apart from the fact that we observe all those "unverifiable, and actually scientifically unimaginable" heavy elements in star and supernova spectrae since 150 years.
SOME heavy elements are produced.
Quote:
Larger stars will also fuse heavier elements, all the way to iron, which is the end point of the process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star
Unless there's an explanation for the other heavy elements?
And then you spend the rest of your post setting up a strawman for you to burn down. I'll take a few moments to tell you how I see things, as a creationist.
Quote:
Creationists attribute the observations of nature to the actions of supernatural forces
No, we attribute the things that nature cannot do on its own to God or whatever other creator. The universe cannot create itself. Life cannot create itself. So regardless of the specific details like evolution and all of that noise, we understand some fundamental things about nature that scientists just say, "Our explanation isn't really physically possible, but we know this is how it happened anyway."
God created the universe to run itself, albeit in a way that will eventually wind down to nothing. Do you know why the Big Bang was generally accepted over solid state (in part). Because if the universe was infinite, there would be no energy left. It had to have a start. Certainly something added a whole bunch of usable energy to the universe (etc), and I can't imagine any natural event that could cause that to happen. At least one that lies within the realm of reality.
The Big Bang has an even bigger problem because it has to create all of this energy and matter from scratch....literally nothing.
Quote:
you'll see that nature is running without any obvious supernatural events. The Creator (let us assume for a moment that he or she exists) does not need to manually rotate the earth or apply the breath of life to every living being. Obviously the world is designed to run automatically without permanent divine interventions.
I ALMOST couldn't have said it any better myself. Although I would have left out the uncertainty of a creator.
I just want to point out one thing.
Quote:
obviously the world is designed to run automatically without permanent divine interventions.
I'm glad we agree. 
Quote:
The assumption that the world still needs supernatural interventions in order to develop species implies a limited ability or limited power of the creator. Only a bad watchmaker needs to push his watches from time to time to keep them running.
I don't see what this has to do with creationism at all. Are you saying that in order for life to keep on existing once its been created, that we assume God has to keep fixing it? I wasn't aware that this was a creationist belief.
Quote:
and possibly the creation of nature's laws.
I would think this would just go hand in hand with the creation of the universe. I don't think that nature's laws are absolute truth. They're just the 'absolute truth' as far as our universe is concerned (per se). What would be the point of creating a universe, and then just hoping that random chance keeps it together and running?
Obviously the world would have been designed to run on its own.
Quote:
Permanent intervention is the belief of creationists. This is the belief in a lesser god.
First part, wrong, last part, not necessarily logically correct because even an all powerful God could make a creation that he had to constantly maintain if he really wanted to, I suppose. But I don't see as to why he would.
Quote:
as creationists still believe today, literally created all species
I don't see any rational, scientific explanation otherwise. If elightened folks have somehow moved beyond the creation of life, then I'd love to see some reasonable evidence. There aren't enough zeros in the world to explain the slim chances of this happening.
Also, its not fair to say he literally created all species. Sometimes, species are created as life reproduces. We believe in original kinds. In other words, something like a wolf was created at the beginning, and micro evolution took over from there.
Quote:
Amber needs millions of years to form from tree resin
I don't see how that's an exception. As far as I can tell, they date amber by the strata. So there's just as much proof for the age of amber as there is for the age of any other fossil. From what I understand, no one truly knows for sure how or why amber is formed, though there is some speculation.
Anyway, off to bed. Good night.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69163
05/24/06 07:41
05/24/06 07:41
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
I don't know, when I hear an evolutionist say that all it takes to create order is the addition of energy (from a debate) then I have to be skeptical about the idea that only creationists are confused.
This scepticism is justified. You need not only energy, but also a temperature gradient for creating order.
Quote:
Larger stars will also fuse heavier elements, all the way to iron, which is the end point of the process.
I see now the reason for your con-fusion. Iron is the element with the highest binding energy per nucleon. Thus, fusion indeed ends with iron. Synthesis of elements higher than iron is an energy consuming process.
Fusion - energy gain (elements <= iron)
Nucleosynthesis - energy loss (elements > iron)
For overcoming the electrical potential barrier, you need to accelerate ions to a high velocity for getting new elements higher than iron. The required temperatures are reached only in heavy stars at the very end of their life span: in supernovae.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova_nucleosynthesis
BTW, what is your problem with heavy elements at all? Neither is this disputed in any way nor has it anything to do with creationism. Fossil and earth dating have nothing to do with where heavy elements are created - in case you thought that.
Quote:
Do you know why the Big Bang was generally accepted over solid state (in part). Because if the universe was infinite, there would be no energy left.
I do not understand what you mean with "no energy left". The Big Bang is unrelated to the finiteness or infiniteness of the universe. In fact the analysis of the COBE and WMAP data gave some indications that the universe IS infinite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wmap
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101shape.html
We'll know more about the infinity or finity of the universe after 2007, when the Planck space probe will be launched.
There are also several theories about the start of the universe, but none can be verified or falsified at the moment, as the Big Bang model does not cover the first 10^-43 seconds. We'll need string theory for looking into that very beginning, and this will take some more 30 years.
Until then, you're free to put everything into that first split second - God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whatever.
Quote:
"Creationists attribute observations of nature to the actions of supernatural forces"
"No, we attribute the things that nature cannot do on its own to God or whatever other creator."
What is the difference between the above statements? An action by God is certainly a supernatural action.
I also do not fully understand the rest of your arguments to the 'intervention' issue. As you've stated earlier, creationists believe that nature's laws, although created by God, are still not good enough to produce life. Thus life required additional supernatural events, like some god physically placing species on earth. That was the line of my arguments and, as to my knowledge, essential creationist faith. Why is this now a "strawman"?
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: jcl]
#69164
05/26/06 22:32
05/26/06 22:32
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
I see now the reason for your con-fusion. Iron is the element with the highest binding energy per nucleon. Thus, fusion indeed ends with iron. Synthesis of elements higher than iron is an energy consuming process.
Fusion - energy gain (elements <= iron)
Nucleosynthesis - energy loss (elements > iron)
For overcoming the electrical potential barrier, you need to accelerate ions to a high velocity for getting new elements higher than iron. The required temperatures are reached only in heavy stars at the very end of their life span: in supernovae.
Ok. I guess I'm just wondering how that helps out out here on earth. 'Dying' is not the word I would use to describe our sun. So my only problem with this is where do all these heavier elements come from on earth?
Maybe I'm mistaken on this, I really don't care too much for astronomy, but I have yet to hear a decent explanation for this.
I suppose the explanation might be that these heavier elements, caused by a supernova, formed clouds that then formed into solar systems, but I suppose I'll have to ask where the proof of this happening is. Except that its the only explanation in a materialistic universe.
Quote:
I do not understand what you mean with "no energy left".
The energy would be unusable, and the universe would be uninhabitable.
Quote:
The Big Bang is unrelated to the finiteness or infiniteness of the universe.
Ok, unless you believe that the big bang was the beginning to the universe. Which is the impression I get from many of the big bang believers. If the universe had a beginning then its finite. If it didn't have a beginning, then matter is eternal (making it supernatural) and you've managed to stealthily sidestep the question of 'Why'? Namely, why should the universe exist when in fact there is no reason for it to exist (excluding God). I would love to see proof that the universe is infinite. We can hardly even predict tomorrow's weather, but we'll know 'beyond the shadow of a doubt' what the universe was like back into infinity. I'm looking forward to the proof myself.
Quote:
Until then, you're free to put everything into that first split second - God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whatever.
There's that FSM argument you love so much. Science is about possibility (among other things). I find it interesting that people have turned speculation, theory, and probability into absolute certainty. You've morphed nature into a Flying Spaghettie Monster by trying to remove God. Science can't avoid the fact that the universe is steeped in a supernatural source. Either the oxymoronic supernatural nature, or a supernatural creator. I don't get how you can even begin to try and make my belief look irrational while thinking your belief is somehow enlightened.
Quote:
What is the difference between the above statements? An action by God is certainly a supernatural action.
The difference is pretty simple. There are some things that are simply inescapably unnatural. Namely the beginning of the universe and the beginning of life. I'll stick to the beginning of the universe for now. What I've seen in the last, however many years, is simply a succesive ladder of excuses from secular science.
"Ok, we have to find a way that the universe could exist without God."
"How could it start without God?"
"We don't know yet, but we will know."
Lo and behold, the big bang! Suddenly there was an excuse to believe the universe could start without a creator (maybe not the first excuse, but the first 'serious' one). At least on the surface. But you have problems. You named one of them. The other problem is that it requires a belief that nature can create itself, which goes against everything we know about nature.
The big bang was pretty good for a while, but after a while the idea started to wear thin because there are unavoidable problems.
"Well, we still know that God didn't create the universe. So now we have to figure out how this big bang is possible without God."
Strings! That's right, vibrating strings control the universe. Its only a matter of time until that explains the exact origin of the universe. Another rung on the ladder has gotten you closer to the origin of the universe, but you're still not any closer to answering the big question. Where did it come from? Whether the question is about elements, or strings, the question remains.
I'm sure the ladder could lead to explanations for strings, and so on and so forth. But the ladder will never end. Its just a bunch of excuses.
Quote:
As you've stated earlier, creationists believe that nature's laws, although created by God, are still not good enough to produce life.
Yeah. Is it coincidental that dead elements don't come to life and eventually accidentally cause a consciousness that would understand the universe it accidentally came from. I would call it scientific common sense. But nowadays scientific common sense is that no matter what God can't exist, even if it seems like God does.
Quote:
Thus life required additional supernatural events, like some god physically placing species on earth. That was the line of my arguments and, as to my knowledge, essential creationist faith. Why is this now a "strawman"?
See, I thought you were talking about us attributing the rising of the sun to direct actions by God. We know that God created a self sustaining universe that He doesn't need to tinker with in order to keep it running. That's what's so great about his creation, and another trademark of his work.
The reason I assumed you were giving such a simplistic argument is because you mentioned 'observations of nature'. Spontaneous life goes against all natural observations. So there's no correlation. Even in horribly overexaggerated conditions that are highly unrealistic according to idealistic evolutionary models of early earth, we still couldn't get all of the materials of life to form, nor could we even get the right KINDs of what materials we did get to form. What we found is how exactly nature CANNOT cause life to spontaneously erupt out of non-living chemicals.
Science is with God on this one, I'm afraid. So yes, we do attribute the things that science has proved nature cannot do, to a creator. I fail to see how this is a bad argument to make. If you (and a bunch of other people, and a video camera) saw a dog sprout wings, fly into the air, and begin singing 'Mary Had a Little Lamb' I doubt you would say, "There's that crazy nature, goin at it again." Yet, this is exactly what you do with the origin of life. Or the origin of the universe for that matter.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69165
05/26/06 22:53
05/26/06 22:53
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Irish_Farmer said: Quote:
Ok, unless you believe that the big bang was the beginning to the universe. Which is the impression I get from many of the big bang believers. If the universe had a beginning then its finite. If it didn't have a beginning, then matter is eternal (making it supernatural) and you've managed to stealthily sidestep the question of 'Why'? Namely, why should the universe exist when in fact there is no reason for it to exist (excluding God). I would love to see proof that the universe is infinite. We can hardly even predict tomorrow's weather, but we'll know 'beyond the shadow of a doubt' what the universe was like back into infinity. I'm looking forward to the proof myself.
LOL.
jcl said:
Quote:
As you've stated earlier, creationists believe that nature's laws, although created by God, are still not good enough to produce life.
Its not that I don't believe God could have set laws in motion to create and direct evolution(theistic evolution), its just that common descent cannot explain the present diversity. Im open to the idea of evolution, it doesn't make me an infidel to believe that we evolved, its just that the idea of all the present species resulting from chance mutation is ridiculous to me. I think that people who believe macro-evolution have a habit of making enormous oversimplifications. There is so much we don't know in science, its ridiculous to make assumptions about common descent based upon morphological similarities.
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69166
05/27/06 07:37
05/27/06 07:37
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
I really don't care too much for astronomy, but I have yet to hear a decent explanation for this.
That's the problem: you won't get the latter without the former.
You do not care about astronomy, i.e. observation of structure and history of the universe, but nevertheless have made up your mind that supernatural events must be involved in this. So you still care - but only if it fits into your belief system! Thus, as the observations obviously contradict anything supernatural, you have no choice but to not care about or ignore astronomy. Just as you've forced to ignore the overwhelming evolution evidence.
I also see that you do not really get the difference between a scientific and a superstitional world view:
Quote:
"Ok, we have to find a way that the universe could exist without God."
On the surface, that's your silly science "strawman" again. But in fact it is the familiar creationist approach, just turned upside down:
"Ok, we have to find a way that life could not exist without supernatural events."
Science does not care about the existence or nonexistence of gods, as long as they are not observable. God is left to religion, supernaturality is left to superstition. The scientific approach - that you'll probably learn when beginning with your biology study - is:
"Let's find a theory that describes our observation of the universe as good as possible."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
If you really want to see gods or daemons or supernatural forces in nature, you probably will. But keep in mind: God is not on your side. If anything, he's on the side of science. Because if he existed, he'd obviously designed the world in a way consistent with a scientific explanation, and inconsistent with supernaturality. And he'd hate superstition.
Quote:
I suppose the explanation might be that these heavier elements, caused by a supernova, formed clouds that then formed into solar systems, but I suppose I'll have to ask where the proof of this happening is.
This explanation is correct. Nucleosynthesis is basic quantum mechanics (in fact it can be described pretty accurately even with a classical appoach). The proof can be found in any accelerator experiment. And the proof that the same happens in the universe is that we see stars forming this way at several places in our and other galaxies. The composition of elements, and the amount of heavy elements in the interstellar gas is directly observed in spectral absorption lines. Nucleosynthesis of heavy elements is directly observed in supernova spectrae.
But I still have no clue of the reason of your problem with those elements. Do you doubt the existence of heavy elements, or how they were created? Do you think that heavy elements were created by supernatural forces?
Quote:
The energy would be unusable, and the universe would be uninhabitable.
This was your argument, if I remember right, why the universe can not be infinite. I admit that I'm now totally lost. Could you explain what "unuseable energy" is?
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: jcl]
#69167
05/27/06 22:48
05/27/06 22:48
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
That's the problem: you won't get the latter without the former.
You do not care about astronomy, i.e. observation of structure and history of the universe, but nevertheless have made up your mind that supernatural events must be involved in this.
Let me just say. I don't not care about astronomy because it offends my beliefs. I just don't care because its not that interesting to me. What little research I've done into it has, if anything, solidified my idea that we were created. However, my main focus of interest in science is biology. That's where I spend most of my time studying and learning, etc. I'm not going to swamp myself with information in every field when I can specialize in one and learn as much as possible about it.
Quote:
Science does not care about the existence or nonexistence of gods, as long as they are not observable.
I don't agree. If God could be observed, then that would automatically place Him within the realm of science in which case scientists would care. Since He cannot be observed, scientists don't care. The way I see it.
Quote:
"Let's find a theory that describes our observation of the universe as good as possible."
Ok. But if my theory seems to explain nature better to me, then why should it matter that it isn't evolution?
Quote:
If you really want to see gods or daemons or supernatural forces in nature, you probably will.
I don't want to see God, believe me. However, I believe that I should see his signature on his creation, which I believe I do. You believe that you should see random chance in the universe, so you do. Silly how that works.
Quote:
he'd obviously designed the world in a way consistent with a scientific explanation, and inconsistent with supernaturality.
I agree, but we've wandered far into the realm of speculation, so I don't have to agree with your theories, because according to science, neither of us is right. We can't recreate the big bang, or evolution, so we just have to look at the natural world and see if it reflects evolution or creation. However, science, as evolutionists are quick to point out when you ask them a tough question, isn't meant to deal with absolutes. Just probability, in this case.
Quote:
And he'd hate superstition.
Can you clarify what in my position involves supserstition? I believe that God created the universe, probably without the big bang, please tell me what he would hate about this.
Quote:
nd the proof that the same happens in the universe is that we see stars forming this way at several places in our and other galaxies.
I was under the impression that we had yet to actually observe a star forming. But that instead we had just observed what we thought would be part of the process of a star forming.
Quote:
Do you doubt the existence of heavy elements, or how they were created?
Nope, I just don't think that planets are created the way that astronomers generally agree that they are. As far as I can tell (from what I've read on scientific websites), stars can only be created in a universe where stars already exist. That sounds like a rather unique problem.
Quote:
Do you think that heavy elements were created by supernatural forces?
I think that God probably created the Earth all at once, without the aid of exploding stars. I think, according to the materialist model, its unlikely that stars would even exist in the universe.
Quote:
This was your argument, if I remember right, why the universe can not be infinite. I admit that I'm now totally lost. Could you explain what "unuseable energy" is?
Well, the universe is expanding is it not? Would this not continually lead the universe on a path towards absolute zero? As stars burn up their fuel, energy is being turned into something relatively 'unusable'. At least if you consider our universe better than a lifeless/dead universe, which I do. In other words, I don't think science allows for the infinite creation of stars unless matter and energy are being fed into the universe from some supernatural source.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 05/27/06 22:50.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69168
05/28/06 09:14
05/28/06 09:14
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
I don't not care about astronomy because it offends my beliefs. I just don't care because its not that interesting to me.
Ah, ok. Sometimes I misunderstand people because it's hard to imagine for me how someone could not be interested in astronomy .
Quote:
I don't agree. If God could be observed, then that would automatically place Him within the realm of science in which case scientists would care. Since He cannot be observed, scientists don't care. The way I see it.
Yes, that's exactly what I meant to say. Natural science is about the observable.
Quote:
Can you clarify what in my position involves supserstition? I believe that God created the universe, probably without the big bang, please tell me what he would hate about this.
Ok. Of course this is a speculation, but you do not necessarily need to believe in god for speculating about him.
First, the Big Bang is an observable fact (background radiation). Thus god can not have created the universe without the Big Bang... unless under a certain assumption that I'll come to later.
I will first assume that our observations about nature are true. They are not artificially created by a God in order to deceive us. Under this assumption, at a certain time in the past - probably much earlier than 13.7 billion years ago - God created the mechanism that we call "laws of nature". The mere existence of this mechanism then led some undefined time later to the spontaneous creation of our and possibly other universes - precisely following God's plan. The following history of our universe is then descibed by the Big Bang model. The "nature's laws" mechanism led consequently to the evolution of life not only on our, but also on millions - or infinite many - other planets in the universe.
Christians (not your sect, but mainstream Christianity) normally assume that Genesis does not describe the literal creation of the world, but maybe God's fine tuning of the nature mechanism. Earth, sky, animals, Adam etc. existed not in flesh, but as models in God's mind, long before they really came into existence. Much later, the nature mechnanism then produced the desired results just in the way that God had in mind.
God gave Adam a curious, questioning brain, and at the same time gave him lots of things to observe in nature - background radiation, red shift, DNA proofs of a common ancestor etc. Thus we got everything that we need for deriving the mechanism that God originally designed - nature's laws. Obviously, God meant us to completely understand his design. We can then assume that he hates every obstacles in our way of understanding. Those obstacles are superstition: The attempts to explain nature not by His designed natural laws, but by supernatural events. If he wanted us to believe in creationism, he had certainly not given us the possibility to directly observe the evolutional relation of all species in their DNA record.
Ok, but what if our observations of nature are not true but misleading? This would be the other possibility: God has directly created the universe, not billions of years ago but much later, at an undefined date in the past, like 4000 BC. Maybe he was in a hurry.
In that case he has intentionally created our world in a way as if it were billions of years old. There is no other explanation for all astronomical observations. You have dismissed the possibility that he placed fossils in the earth, but I see absolutely no reason why this should be "nonsense" and on the other hand believe in that he placed photons in space so that we can see far-away stars.
Obviously, there's an intention behind all of this. God wants us to use our brains, and derive the laws of nature even if, as in this case, nature didn't come into existence according to those laws. Maybe he has some plan with us humans that requires our understanding of those laws of nature. In this case however he would hate even more everything that diverts us from our understanding.
This is the reason why I think that no matter how and when God created the world, he hates superstition, and especially creationism.
Quote:
Well, the universe is expanding is it not? Would this not continually lead the universe on a path towards absolute zero? As stars burn up their fuel, energy is being turned into something relatively 'unusable'.
Yes, but that's not an argument against the infinity of the universe. In fact it will happen no matter whether the universe is finite or infinite. More details in this thread:
http://www.coniserver.net/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/5/Number/618564/an/0/page/3#Post618564
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: jcl]
#69169
05/28/06 14:15
05/28/06 14:15
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
This is the reason why I think that no matter how and when God created the world, he hates superstition, and especially creationism.
This is an interesting speculation, interesting to me because I haven't heard it before, also interesting because it is mostly true. God WOULD hate superstition if it interfered with understanding the universe. I think what I would disagree with here is that "superstition"(as you call it) neccessarily blocks understanding of our world.
As I have often stated, the bible is not a science manual, to my "sect" of Christians the bible is a manual of the super-natural, not the natural.
So to make a long story short I would agree with you 100%, God would hate the supernatural if it interfered with understanding the natural; but I think He would also hate the natural sciences if they interfered with understanding the super-natural.
You seem to believe that God has wound up the great watch of the universe and just lets it tick away with no more interference, we believe that also, but we also believe that by prayer and other methods (such as events and prophecies) God would also intervene with the natural.
Example: Jesus walking on the water, there were several natural laws changed during this miracle. When God changes natural law He is demonstating Himself as God.
The supernatural is "proof" of God.
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: NITRO777]
#69170
05/29/06 23:19
05/29/06 23:19
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
I will first assume that our observations about nature are true. They are not artificially created by a God in order to deceive us.
That's a good place to start.
Quote:
Christians (not your sect, but mainstream Christianity) normally assume that Genesis does not describe the literal creation of the world, but maybe God's fine tuning of the nature mechanism.
You would have to purposely misread the bible to make this assumption.
I just take this as they're confused.
Quote:
Those obstacles are superstition: The attempts to explain nature not by His designed natural laws, but by supernatural events.
I fail to see how any of what I've said relating to science is superstition. According to the definition, you believe a lot of superstition yourself.
Quote:
If he wanted us to believe in creationism, he had certainly not given us the possibility to directly observe the evolutional relation of all species in their DNA record.
You can't just mix a lie with truth and expect the lie/guess/whatever to become true by association. When we see common aspects of DNA, we literally only know for sure that there is DNA in common. Every other conclusion except that DNA is similar is merely speculation. At that point its just as correct to say that its a reflection of common design as it is common ancestry.
What's more important is noticing how even the small differences in DNA (chimps<->humans) are an overwhelming barrier that mutations cannot overcome.
Quote:
In that case he has intentionally created our world in a way as if it were billions of years old.
I'll touch on this later, because this is more of a problem for you than it is me.
Quote:
and on the other hand believe in that he placed photons in space so that we can see far-away stars.
I don't believe that.
Quote:
and especially creationism.
...
Quote:
Yes, but that's not an argument against the infinity of the universe. In fact it will happen no matter whether the universe is finite or infinite.
I wasn't aware that energy went through infinite cycles. If you look back infinitely into the past, the universe would have become useless for life infinity ago. I would think this would cause all sorts of mathematical problems. All matter in the universe would be as far apart as it can get in an infinite amount of time, and energy would be converted to 'unuseable' form infinity ago too.
I thought infinite time couldn't exist because it caused all sorts of paradoxes. Or am I wrong?
Ok, back to my point. My theory would predict that, even if there are certain calculations that might lead to an old earth, there will be some that lead to a young earth. In fact, it won't be compeletely certain. Salinity of the ocean, reef growth, etc all give a maximum young(er) age. Oh yeah! And the moon is escaping, giving a young age even for our solar system. The oldest tree is also about 5000 years old, strangely enough (which could fall within the range of the biblical flood if you consider that dual rings can form in a year). Wonder why that would be.
My theory also predicts that some dating methods which should correlate will not, which is what happens. No one knows for sure, and even as a creationist, the only reason I'm sure that the earth is young is because I think the bible says so. However, that isn't scientific reason, but I think I can scientifically say that we can't really know for sure. If the earth was created with an apparent age, then there should be other evidence that it was created that way. Which I think we find. There is more young earth evidence, but I'll leave it at that for now because I'm tired.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 05/29/06 23:21.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
|
