Question to Creationists: What's the Mechanism?

[firedragon]

No.

It can be.

But you said it can't be experience. Thats why I was clarifying.

Anyway, thanks.

 

[Heyo]

To summarise and to make clear I have understood, you propose two mechanisms:

(Genesis 1:11-13) 11 Then God said: “Let the earth cause grass to sprout, seed-bearing plants and fruit trees according to their kinds, yielding fruit along with seed on the earth.” And it was so. 12 And the earth began to produce grass, seed-bearing plants and trees yielding fruit along with seed, according to their kinds. Then God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

First a magical incantation, and then

The “kinds” of animals selected had reference to the clear-cut and unalterable boundaries or limits set by the Creator, within which boundaries creatures are capable of breeding “according to their kinds.” It has been estimated by some that the hundreds of thousands of species of animals today could be reduced to a comparatively few family “kinds”—the horse kind and the cow kind, to mention but two. The breeding boundaries according to “kind” established by Jehovah were not and could not be crossed. With this in mind some investigators have said that, had there been as few as 43 “kinds” of mammals, 74 “kinds” of birds, and 10 “kinds” of reptiles in the ark, they could have produced the variety of species known today. Others have been more liberal in estimating that 72 “kinds” of quadrupeds and less than 200 bird “kinds” were all that were required.

a rapid turbo evolution, mostly through hybridisation, of about one new species every day.
Did I get that right?

With the magic part you agree with @Link and with the second you agree with Darwin, only you think that speciation happens much faster than evolutionary biology predicts.

 

[viole]

350 BCE - Aristotle reated a theory on how the Earth was created and how the universe is laid out. He believed the Earth had always existed and was in an almost eternal state. The Earth, to his understanding, was unchanged and always provided a perfect circular motion for the revolving bodies. Aristotle argued for a spherical Earth.

1600 B.C.E - Job wrote... He [God] is stretching out the north over the empty place,
Hanging the earth upon nothing [in the vast heavens, with armies of heavenly bodies]. Job 26:7

Did you read that scripture before?

I read this on bbc.com... Long before anyone circumnavigated the globe or went into space, the ancient Greeks had figured out that the Earth is ball-shaped, rather than flat.
We have known that Earth is round for over 2000 years

However, did you know... over 400 years prior, a Bible writer said the earth was circular... round like a ball.
"There is One who dwells above the circle of the earth." Isaiah 40:22

I thought you knew of these before. Did anyone point these out to you before?

Well, the ancient greeks also postulated that all matter was made of atoms, which was impressive. If that has been inspired by Apollo, then Apollo beats Yaweh hands down.

And did you read the part where it says water existed before the stars, in your Bible? That is enough to throw away the rest (at least if we interpret it literally, and we have no clue of science).

And circles are not spheres, believe me.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

It's important to consider viole, that God was not instructing his people about science or the mechanisms of his creation, so it's not expected that we would open the Bible, and read how DNA was put together, and it would work, but what we do read in the Bible, is truths, and there are truths that are becoming evident to investigators.
So when the Bible touches on things of a scientific nature - whether biology, or chemistry, it is well ahead, and accurate.

Take for example, the Big Bang. The existing model says the universe began with a tremendous amount of energy (They are trying to replicate this burst of energy, right now, in C.E.R.N).
Genesis 1:1 That's in the1300s BCE.
In the eighth century BC, Isaiah, also wrote of this...
“Lift up your eyes to heaven and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who brings out their army by number; He calls them all by name. Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power, Not one of them is missing. (Isaiah 40:26)

There are a number of other things mentioned in the Bible, that are only recently being discovered.

Well, even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day, even thought that Isaiah passage could adapt to basically everything. But, I would say, that the density of errors on page 1, is more than enough to save ourselves the pain to go to page 2.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

So anything you have not heard doesnt exist?

If what I never heard claims to show evidence of a God's made Universe, or any other extraordinary claim? Yes

I would think the same if someone told me that there are ancient scripts in the history of humanity that prove the existence of Xenu, the ruler of the galaxy. And when challenged to show them, they reply: well, look yourself for them. LOL

Wouldn't you? If not, then I would say that your epistemic filters let a bit too many things through.

But it should not difficult for you to prove me wrong Let's make a test. What does the creation account of your particular brand of God say? You are Muslim, apparently. So, what does, whatever Scripture is relevant to Muslims, it say about that?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Thats false. Maybe you are answering another question. No wait. You are absolutely answering some other question.

Well, as I said, do you see a loophole that would still allow libertarian free will, assuming our physical theories are unitarian, to exist?
How? How can you introduce new physical information that was not already available before any act of volition? A miracle? Billions and billions of miracles/day?

Ciao

- viole

 

[firedragon]

Well, as I said, do you see a loophole that would still allow libertarian free will, assuming our physical theories are unitarian, to exist?
How? How can you introduce new physical information that was not already available before any act of volition? A miracle? Billions and billions of miracles/day?

Ciao

- viole

Irrelevant.

 

[firedragon]

If what I never heard claims to show evidence of a God's made Universe, or any other extraordinary claim? Yes

I would think the same if someone told me that there are ancient scripts in the history of humanity that prove the existence of Xenu, the ruler of the galaxy. And when challenged to show them, they reply: well, look yourself for them. LOL

Wouldn't you? If not, then I would say that your epistemic filters let a bit too many things through.

But it should not difficult for you to prove me wrong Let's make a test. What does the creation account of your particular brand of God say? You are Muslim, apparently. So, what does, whatever Scripture is relevant to Muslims, it say about that?

Ciao

- viole

I would never, ever make claims like "If I haven't heard about something, it doesnt exist". You see? Its a very bad complex.

 

[viole]

Irrelevant.

CIao

- viole

 

[viole]

I would never, ever make claims like "If I haven't heard about something, it doesnt exist". You see? Its a very bad complex.

Well, then prove me wrong. What is so difficult? As a theist you should have some Scriptures showing clearly a divine origin, otherwise why believe them?

Ciao

- viole

 

[firedragon]

Well, then prove me wrong. What is so difficult? As a theist you should have some Scriptures showing clearly a divine origin, otherwise why believe them?

Ciao

- viole

Yes of course. Thinking that if you have not heard of something it cannot exist is logically fallacious. Unless you think you are omniscient. So if you think you are omniscient, then you should be, and it would stand with your claim, if not claiming an omniscient quality while being not is a logical fallacy. You can't be a square circle.

So proven wrong.

 

[viole]

Yes of course. Thinking that if you have not heard of something it cannot exist is logically fallacious. Unless you think you are omniscient. So if you think you are omniscient, then you should be, and it would stand with your claim, if not claiming an omniscient quality while being not is a logical fallacy. You can't be a square circle.

So proven wrong.

In case of supernatural claims coming from so called holy books...it is easy to be omniscient .

I know that you might be more inclined than I to believe in things without a shred of evidence, but I am not. So, my default is that those things do not exist, if insufficient evidence exists (in this case no evidence). Should I be agnostic instead? I did not inspect every corner of the Universe for the Blue Fairy, either, so is it really so bad if I claim that the Blue Fairy does not exist? How silly would I look to claim agnosticism of the Blue Fairy? . With your Holy Books is the same.

So, do you have at least a little bit of evidence of creation accounts that show a greater knowledge than what available at the time? Yes, or no? Should not be too difficult to answer.

Ciao

- viole

 

[firedragon]

In case of supernatural claims coming from so called holy books...it is easy to be omniscient .

Irrelevant.

 

[viole]

Irrelevant.

Ciao

- viole

 

[nPeace]

To summarise and to make clear I have understood, you propose two mechanisms:

First a magical incantation, and then

a rapid turbo evolution, mostly through hybridisation, of about one new species every day.
Did I get that right?

I think not, but everyone has their view of what is magical. The mechanism proposed for the ToE based on conjecture and extrapolation are all magical to not just a few billion people.

With the magic part you agree with @Link and with the second you agree with Darwin, only you think that speciation happens much faster than evolutionary biology predicts.

You certainly have made quite a few assertions, but I think you did so based on your viewpoint.
In that case, may I ask, what do you mean when you say magic? Is something magic because it is not understood, or known to man?

I don't hold to that view of what is magic, so if someone said God did magic, no I did not agree with that person.
However, I am sure, like myself, @Link did not say magic, and he believes in miracles, as I do. Sorry if I misrepresent you link, Please correct me if I am wrong.

A miracle, is defined by some as, an event that seems inexplicable by natural or scientific laws.

A true miracle would, by definition, be a non-natural phenomenon, leading many writers to dismiss them as physically impossible (that is, requiring violation of established laws of physics within their domain of validity) or impossible to confirm by their nature (because all possible physical mechanisms can never be ruled out). The former position is expressed for instance by Thomas Jefferson and the latter by David Hume. Theologians typically say that, with divine providence, God regularly works through nature yet, as a creator, is free to work without, above, or against it as well.

Because one has limited knowledge and understanding of something, does not mean that what they don't understand is impossible.
It just means the person/persons is/are, can we say, young in understanding and knowledge?
For example, my limited knowledge and understanding may have caused me to doubt that the Wright Brothers actually flew anything. So I would go, "Yeah right."
I might have referred to it as magic.

On how magic is defined, by some... Magic ... is the application of beliefs, rituals or actions employed in the belief that they can subdue or manipulate natural or supernatural beings and forces. It is a category into which have been placed various beliefs and practices sometimes considered separate from both religion and science.


Anyway, forgive my rambling. I just felt I needed to clear that up.
When you say, I believe. speciation happens much faster than evolutionary biology predicts", I suppose you are asking, and not asserting...

Evolutionary biology predicted that speciation happen much slower than I believe? Not to my knowledge.
Three facts to consider, as to why.

First off, Darwins finches... how many did he discover on the Galapagos, after a year? Was it 13? How many species of finches exist today? Doing the math, 4000 years is not too small a window to produce all the species we know of today.

Secondly, we know that extinction is a growing problem for many species today. The question is, was that always the case, or are we creating more problems today than ever before? So, how would we explain evolution in the light of an explosion of species... gradual... sudden?
Speciation remains one of the most controversial and least understood topics in evolution. About 75% of the earth’s surface is covered by oceans. However, most of what we currently know about speciation is strongly biased toward terrestrial and freshwater organisms.

Third, it's not evolution biology that predicts anything. It's the evolutionary biologist, that make these predictions, and conjectures.
Speciation and Burst of Evolution.

The mechanisms by which new species arise are still not fully understood.

Spoiler

What are the evolutionary processes that drive the evolution of new species? Evolutionary biologists traditionally assumed that geographical barriers between animal populations play a decisive role (allopatric speciation): a species is physically separated into two or more isolated populations, thereby preventing gene flow between these groups. The subpopulations adapt to their respective habitats and evolve into independent species with different characteristics. In recent years, however, the evolutionary biologist Professor Axel Meyer from the University of Konstanz has not only been able to show that new species can evolve from a source population within a shared habitat and in the presence of gene flow (sympatric speciation), but that this type of speciation might be much more common than previously thought.

If you don't fully understand it, and it's so controversial, how can you be so sure of your assumptions?

I think everything happened as it naturally was supposed to.
God told Noah to preserve life for his purpose to come to realization. He finished his creative works - complete, with the regenerative powers imbedded in everything. So that life could become abundant in the earth.
I believe that much of what man believes to be extinct, is still around, some in the genes, as well as some in body.
They find ways to survive, and continue to adapt, or evolve, if you wish.

They don't change to what man imagines though. Magic, or just fantasy?

 

[tas8831]

Big non-random type mutations and rapid type, that can't be accounted by randomness.

Citation please.

I actually believe this only way species can survive, the slow wait for a good mutation speed of natural type evolution can never bring change fast enough for them to survive.

You believe that... Great.

 

[nPeace]

Well, the ancient greeks also postulated that all matter was made of atoms, which was impressive. If that has been inspired by Apollo, then Apollo beats Yaweh hands down.

And did you read the part where it says water existed before the stars, in your Bible? That is enough to throw away the rest (at least if we interpret it literally, and we have no clue of science).

And circles are not spheres, believe me.

Ciao

- viole

I do forgive all those who read the Bible and don't understand a word of what they read. There are reasons for that.
So if you were to (not saying that you did, but it would not surprise me if some do) read that the water was on the earth before the earth was even formed, I understand.

A little two year old knows that circles are not spheres. They don't know that spheres are made up of circles, though.
That's a little too technical for them... which of course is understandable.
Scientist know this though... at least some of them

 

[Jose Fly]

You know @nPeace the verse you quoted from Isaiah about the "circle of the earth" brings to mind another passage, 1 Samuel 2:8 where it says "For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and on them he has set the world". So we have a circle that rests on pillars. Sounds flat, and explains why prominent Christian leaders used to think the Bible depicted a flat earth.

However, what stands out to me with both Isaiah and 1 Samuel is that they are very, very clearly poetry/songs. Now I don't know about you, but I don't usually look to those genres for scientific insights, you know? I figure the folks who wrote those were like most poets and songwriters....their focus is on conveying spiritual, philosophical, abstract, and/or emotional messages, rather than being scientifically precise.

So do you think it's possible you're taking those passages the wrong way and reading them in the wrong context?

 

[Heyo]

I don't hold to that view of what is magic, so if someone said God did magic, no I did not agree with that person.
However, I am sure, like myself, @Link did not say magic, and he believes in miracles, as I do.

Magic is the temporary suspension of the the laws of nature, whereas a miracle is the temporary suspension of the laws of nature only that a believer in miracles believes a deity is somehow involved.
For this thread specific, magic (or if you want miracle) is a change in state that isn't and can't or won't be explained by breaking it down into atomic steps (which conform to the laws of nature).

When a stage magician shows us an empty hat, then performs a ritual and draws a rabbit out of the formerly empty hat, there are two explanations:
1. The rabbit was teleported by the ritual (not conform to the laws of nature).
2. The rabbit was always in the hat. Step 1: the magician made the hat so it optically looks empty. Step 2: while distracting us by the ritual he secretly removes the false bottom. Step 3: he pulls out the rabbit.

(Genesis 1:11-13) 11 Then God said: “Let the earth cause grass to sprout, seed-bearing plants and fruit trees according to their kinds, yielding fruit along with seed on the earth.” And it was so.

This is a clear example of case 1. A state of no life to a state of life and in between only a magical (miraculous) incantation. No explanation of atomic steps in between.

 

[nPeace]

You know @nPeace the verse you quoted from Isaiah about the "circle of the earth" brings to mind another passage, 1 Samuel 2:8 where it says "For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and on them he has set the world". So we have a circle that rests on pillars. Sounds flat, and explains why prominent Christian leaders used to think the Bible depicted a flat earth.

However, what stands out to me with both Isaiah and 1 Samuel is that they are very, very clearly poetry/songs. Now I don't know about you, but I don't usually look to those genres for scientific insights, you know? I figure the folks who wrote those were like most poets and songwriters....their focus is on conveying spiritual, philosophical, abstract, and/or emotional messages, rather than being scientifically precise.

So do you think it's possible you're taking those passages the wrong way and reading them in the wrong context?

Thank you.
Which would mean that a skeptic can pick a verse and apply it poetically... if he / she wants, and a Christian can pick a verse, and apply it literally.

Why would the skeptic apply every verse that would counter their argument in this way?
Why would the Christian apply the verse in a way that counters the skeptics' claim?

I am sure these are questions you and I will answer differently, but I believe where we may think we have the correct answer, we know, we are only dust.
That's where we go in a few years from now... possibly.

I say possibly, because I believe 1 John 5:17 to be literally true.
I believe this dust, is far from superior. I think you would agree, since the sun will continue to burn, regardless of how many billions walk to their grave.

I know there is a supreme being, and that one has the answers - knows all things. So it really doesn't matter what you or I think we know.
What is important, is what we know, imo.

I hope I have not confused you.