Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[AndromedaRXJ]

Yes.

Thank you. I just needed to expose the contradictions of your viewpoint.

The more I consider what is possible for humans to do given their intelligence -and what is not possible where humans are absent, the more I believe that what exists or is produced from that which exists is indicative of the process or intelligence which ordered it -and that the complex orders of some things indicate that they must first have been imagined -modeled in some sort of memory -before being caused.

 

[Etritonakin]

Thank you. I just needed to expose the contradictions of your viewpoint.

From what you write, it is apparent that you did not understand what I wrote.
What you believe to be contradictions are based on your perception of what I wrote -not on what I actually wrote.
You do not understand my viewpoint at all.
Furthermore, I am only considering possibilities -so my view is of what may have been -not what I believe absolutely has been.


You seem to be considering everything as happening at once.
Certainly, before something can be modeled in an imagination, the imagination must first exist.
Certain things are only possible if first modeled in an imagination, but an imagination is only possible if certain things happen first.

No contradiction there.

Also, I am considering the original intelligence as existing and developing before the Big Bang -not developing from that which was produced by the Big Bang.
However, as that which exists after the Big Bang is an arrangement of that which existed before the Big Bang, the most basic nature of both is the same.
However, we developed -or were developed -from the rearrangement of the most basic nature -and that which applies to us in that regard would not apply to an intelligence which existed and developed from the most basic nature.

The most basic nature -having been arranged as our universe -is obviously the basis for human intelligence. Therefore, the most basic nature is the basis for intelligence -but not necessarily human or element-based intelligence.

Just as knowledge of the present arrangement of the universe reveals that which can and cannot happen without human intelligent activity, knowledge of the most basic nature would reveal that which could and could not happen without another sort of intelligent activity.
And... As humans developed from the new nature to a certain point before certain activity became possible, so might the most basic nature have developed to certain points before certain other things were possible.

Finally, the most basic nature must have been of a nature to allow all that has been -and the most basic nature is now much less basic than it was -and we are now much less basic than the most basic nature was initially -as we are complexities based on a complexity of the most basic nature. The most basic nature has become far more complex than we presently are -as we are only a small part of the overall complexity.

 

[NoorNoor]

Insert unified M-theory and this all breaks down. No gods are necessary, in fact there is no room for gods to exist as all universes would be a product of the interaction of physical, describable forces. There'd be no step in which a creation point could have happened.

M stands for "magic/mystery" according to taste. True meaning would be decided after more fundamental formulation is known according to (Edward Witten). So far, the theory is not verified to be consistent with physical observations. On the other hand, Science observations consistent with general relativity and quantum effects implied that the universe/time must have a beginning.

Sure you can insert M- theory, but that would mainly depend on your taste and whether you want to believe in one way or another.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

M stands for "magic/mystery" according to taste. True meaning would be decided after more fundamental formulation is known according to (Edward Witten). So far, the theory is not verified to be consistent with physical observations. On the other hand, Science observations consistent with general relativity and quantum effects implied that the universe/time must have a beginning.

Sure you can insert M- theory, but that would mainly depend on your taste and whether you want to believe in one way or another.

M stands for membrane, as in brane cosmology. The 'mystery' was a joke, because, at the time, less was known about brane cosmology. A lot more has been added through Hawking's research since 95. And while there are still unknowns, it is a far more scientific model than deity ex nihilo.
Incidentally OUR universe and time did have a beginning in brane mechanics, just not the only beginning as there is not one universe.

 

[OurCreed]

So, you believe that we and baboons have a common ancestor and that this fact has been defined in the "initial conditions" of the Universe?

Ciao

- viole

Everything, every event, has been decreed by God. Our actions however, us given free will, these have not been pre-determined.

 

[Sapiens]

Everything, every event, has been decreed by God. Our actions however, us given free will, these have not been pre-determined.

Do you not see the complete and utter contradiction in that statement, or does your god have a measuring stick for deciding between the two options?

 

[Valjean]

-A ""beginning"" point beyond which, the universe did not exist, imply an intervention of an external power that forced the non existent word to come to existence.

-The external power should have independent existence beyond space, time and any law that was imposed on the universe after the beginning.

-The external power can't be defined, observed or explained by science.

-The external power is what a creationist call God.

It implies no such thing. There are any number of explanations involving natural, non-intentional "causes."
Explain this "independent existence."
Why can't this"external power" be explained by science? Is this external power a straw man?
"God" is a personage, with will, desires and intention; not an indifferent, non-sentient natural process.

 

[OurCreed]

Do you not see the complete and utter contradiction in that statement, or does your god have a measuring stick for deciding between the two options?

The human free will is the EXCEPTION to everything that has been pre-determined. Our actions are not pre-determined, they were written by our own hands.

 

[Sapiens]

The human free will is the EXCEPTION to everything that has been pre-determined. Our actions are not pre-determined, they were written by our own hands.

You really don't see how that adds up to contradictory nonsense?

 

[OurCreed]

You really don't see how that adds up to contradictory nonsense?

No it doesn't. Expand your head, there is no contradiction if there are exceptions made very clearly.

"All the villagers came to the city except Bob."

That's not a contradiction. Even though Bob was a villager, he was the exception of coming to the new town.

 

[Sapiens]

No it doesn't. Expand your head, there is no contradiction if there are exceptions made very clearly.

"All the villagers came to the city except Bob."

That's not a contradiction. Even though Bob was a villager, he was the exception of coming to the new town.

Semantic games and claptrap. There are actions, covered by free will, (e.g., Truman deciding to blow up two cities with atomic weapons or the small individual contributions that sum to global climate change) that, due to size and number of the affected, stray over the line into what would properly be the domain of your god's predestination.

 

[OurCreed]

Semantic games and claptrap. There are actions, covered by free will, (e.g., Truman deciding to blow up two cities with atomic weapons or the small individual contributions that sum to global climate change) that, due to size and number of the affected, stray over the line into what would properly be the domain of your god's predestination.

Truman made a choice to blow up two cities with atomic weapons.

The effects of those atomic weapons however are not done according to Truman's choices though. The natural laws which God has designed already come into play and are in effect the moment Truman made the choice and dropped the two bombs.

Let's take a simpler example. I make a choice to drop a ball from a building. I made the choice to drop the ball, so I will be accountable to that action.

However, God has created a law of gravity, so the moment I let go of the ball, it has left my will upon it, and is now governed by the pre-determined law.

 

[Sapiens]

Truman made a choice to blow up two cities with atomic weapons.

The effects of those atomic weapons however are not done according to Truman's choices though. The natural laws which God has designed already come into play and are in effect the moment Truman made the choice and dropped the two bombs.

Let's take a simpler example. I make a choice to drop a ball from a building. I made the choice to drop the ball, so I will be accountable to that action.

However, God has created a law of gravity, so the moment I let go of the ball, it has left my will upon it, and is now governed by the pre-determined law.

Truly, that ranks with the most illogical apologetics I have ever read.

 

[NoorNoor]

M stands for membrane, as in brane cosmology. The 'mystery' was a joke, because, at the time, less was known about brane cosmology. A lot more has been added through Hawking's research since 95. And while there are still unknowns, it is a far more scientific model than deity ex nihilo.
Incidentally OUR universe and time did have a beginning in brane mechanics, just not the only beginning as there is not one universe.

This is a theory by Edward Witten. Joke or not, This definition was given by Edwards Witten himself (magic, mystify or membrane according to taste).

Your comparison is wrong. It's not M theory vs deity ex nihilo but the M theory vs the beginning of universe/time as understood by the big bang.

Multiverse theory is more philosophy or hypothesis than hard science. so far, it has remained in the realm of theory. It can't be tested or falsified and only accepted based on faith.

On the other hand, Science proved the remarkable fact that our universe is extremely fine tuned to an extent that a very minute change would make the universe radically different and would not allow for the existence of life.

Multiverse theory argues that our extremely fine tuned universe don't need a creator simply because its one of infinite numbers of other separate universes and being a fine tuned universe is a coincidence. This argument don't have any scientific merit since the multiverse itself is a hypothesis and even if it's some how gets proven in the future, then it needs also to prove that the other universes are not similarly fine tuned like our universe, which is impossible to prove.

In fact, believing in the creator based on solid confirmed observations of an extremely fine tuned universe and a creation point at the big bang, is far more scientific than believing in a hypothesis multiverse theory that invokes infinity of unseen universes based on mere faith

 

[OurCreed]

Truly, that ranks with the most illogical apologetics I have ever read.

Truly, your reply ranks with the most useless refutations I have ever read.

 

[NoorNoor]

It implies no such thing. There are any number of explanations involving natural, non-intentional "causes."

In absence of time, space, physical laws and nature itself, then this is an undefined zone beyond the boundary of science.

Explain this "independent existence."

Independent from time, space and any physical limits that neither exist nor apply at this undefined zone.

Why can't this"external power" be explained by science? Is this external power a straw man?
"God" is a personage, with will, desires and intention; not an indifferent, non-sentient natural process.

See above

 

[Sapiens]

Truly, your reply ranks with the most useless refutations I have ever read.

I provided an observation not a refutation. If you're not careful your hubris will run you over.

 

[OurCreed]

I provided an observation not a refutation. If you're not careful your hubris will run you over.

Of course you didn't provide a refutation. It's to show that you have lost your proper sense in debating, you have nothing better to say.

 

[viole]

Everything, every event, has been decreed by God. Our actions however, us given free will, these have not been pre-determined.

That does not answer the question.

Do you accept the scientfic orthodoxy about evolution? Namely that we have a common biological ancestor with baboons, pigs, butterflies, spiders, trees and so on?

I insist on this because I noticed that many theists clam that their scriptures confirm science while, at the same time, they seem to be shy at accepting its consequences.

Ciao

- viole

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

From what you write, it is apparent that you did not understand what I wrote.
What you believe to be contradictions are based on your perception of what I wrote -not on what I actually wrote.
You do not understand my viewpoint at all.
Furthermore, I am only considering possibilities -so my view is of what may have been -not what I believe absolutely has been.


You seem to be considering everything as happening at once.
Certainly, before something can be modeled in an imagination, the imagination must first exist.
Certain things are only possible if first modeled in an imagination, but an imagination is only possible if certain things happen first.

No contradiction there.

Also, I am considering the original intelligence as existing and developing before the Big Bang -not developing from that which was produced by the Big Bang.
However, as that which exists after the Big Bang is an arrangement of that which existed before the Big Bang, the most basic nature of both is the same.
However, we developed -or were developed -from the rearrangement of the most basic nature -and that which applies to us in that regard would not apply to an intelligence which existed and developed from the most basic nature.

The most basic nature -having been arranged as our universe -is obviously the basis for human intelligence. Therefore, the most basic nature is the basis for intelligence -but not necessarily human or element-based intelligence.

Just as knowledge of the present arrangement of the universe reveals that which can and cannot happen without human intelligent activity, knowledge of the most basic nature would reveal that which could and could not happen without another sort of intelligent activity.
And... As humans developed from the new nature to a certain point before certain activity became possible, so might the most basic nature have developed to certain points before certain other things were possible.

Finally, the most basic nature must have been of a nature to allow all that has been -and the most basic nature is now much less basic than it was -and we are now much less basic than the most basic nature was initially -as we are complexities based on a complexity of the most basic nature. The most basic nature has become far more complex than we presently are -as we are only a small part of the overall complexity.

It sounded like you were saying certain things (like intelligent life) aren't possible without an intelligent designer. Yet your so called "original" intelligence had no designer of his own. He/she is just there.

Sounds like a contradiction.