Scientific and logical objections to evolution...

[SEF]

Ironically, evolution can be eliminated with archeology, in the sense of Michael cremo and Richard L. Thompson . Their findings of bones and artificats really question the validity of the evolution concept.

 

[SEF]

Define "design" the way you understand. Different people may have a different understanding of the concept.

"There is design" or "there is no design" appear to be a subjective assertions or philosophical assertions.

Design to me, implies created, or made. Or even formed.

 

[Techne]

Design to me, implies created, or made. Or even formed.

That is very vague.

 

[SEF]

What are you getting at, Techne ?

 

[porchrat]

What are you getting at, Techne ?

You are going to have to provide a proper standard by which you judge something "designed".

 

[Techne]

What are you getting at, Techne ?

The standard view of "creation" is "making something from nothing". It is a philosophical point of view that is not empirically verifiable (empirical science cannot directly observe "nothingness")
"Made" can mean a plethora of things.
"Formed can mean plethora of different things.

 

[Swa]

They were certainly culturally and physically close enough to us to qualifly as "human" by our standards (well some of our standards). They also represented a significant variation in both DNA and morphology to be regarded as at least sub-species (if not a separate species) of humanity.

And again from your link some say they are only archaic (early) humans.

The interesting story is of course their interaction with our ancesters and why some population groups boast bit of Neanderthal DNA and others don't.

Genesis 6:4

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

Wow a historically accurate account of human history. Who would have thought.

"There is design" or "there is no design" appear to be a subjective assertions or philosophical assertions.

That seems to be a result of our limited understanding. We recognise designs as things humans (or other animals) make but when it comes to life itself there's two conflicting ideas.

You're acting like a Democrat saying the Republicans are lying.

And this sums up the whole evolution vs. creation debate.

The standard view of "creation" is "making something from nothing". It is a philosophical point of view that is not empirically verifiable (empirical science cannot directly observe "nothingness")
"Made" can mean a plethora of things.
"Formed can mean plethora of different things.

I think we've been though this. That is not the standard view of creation unless you only see the "In the beginning ..." part. Our language is really limited. There is a Hebrew word that's specifically dedicated to this one instance of creation and it's only used to refer to the beginning. The rest all relate to using these created materials to form the earth, plants, animals and humans. That is not creation from nothing and the words used relate to forming and making and not creation in the sense you understand it.

It also occurred to me you see this simply as evolution. That unnecessarily complicates things for both sides so the question that needs to be asked here is do you believe in the type of evolution that these guys do?

 

[alloytoo]

Because evolution as a means of understanding the universe is false.
Michael Cremo, who i believe to be a true source of valuable information, has challenged the evolution concept.

Assume for the moment that the theory of evolution (well basically modern physics, cosmology astronomy etc) doesn't exist.

Why do you want to prove design?

 

[alloytoo]

And again from your link some say they are only archaic (early) humans.

That's because my link is balanced and offers varied opinions.

Genesis 6:4

Wow a historically accurate account of human history. Who would have thought.

Sound like Epic of Gilgamesh or Saga of Hercules.

They're much more fun that Jesus you know.


Still,

How old is the earth and was there a flood.....

Or was Hercules merely washing out the stables.

 

[Swa]

I'm through with you

 

[alloytoo]

I'm through with you

Before you go, could you just address these?


Do you believe in a flood event in or about 2348 BC?

How old do you believe the earth to be?

a) about 6010 years old.

b) about 4.5 Billion years old.

There are no wrong answers, so go right ahead and answer, you know you want to.

 

[rwenzori]

You're acting like a Democrat saying the Republicans are lying.

How do you know when a Republican is lying? When he opens his mouth.

How do you know a creationist is lying? When he opens his mouth.

 

[Swa]

How do you know when a Republican is lying? When he opens his mouth.

How do you know a creationist is lying? When he opens his mouth.

How do you know an evolutionist is lying? When he starts to think.

 

[Techne]

I think we've been though this. That is not the standard view of creation unless you only see the "In the beginning ..." part. Our language is really limited. There is a Hebrew word that's specifically dedicated to this one instance of creation and it's only used to refer to the beginning. The rest all relate to using these created materials to form the earth, plants, animals and humans. That is not creation from nothing and the words used relate to forming and making and not creation in the sense you understand it

Are you referring to the word "bara"? It is used to refer to humans and other things. A Scholastic account of creation and change is consistent with Bible's version.

It also occurred to me you see this simply as evolution. That unnecessarily complicates things for both sides so the question that needs to be asked here is do you believe in the type of evolution that these guys do?

I think a clear distinction between creation and change/evolution will benefit discussions surrounding these issues. Also, I think the main difference between the way people see evolution/change is the distinction between existential inertia and existential conservation.

Existential inertia implies that once something is created it will tend to remain in existence without some cause that is needed to keep it in existence.

That is probably the "type of evolution that these guys" believe and I don't. I am curious, do you believe this view?

Existential conservation implies that once things are created they cannot continue to exist for an instant without an active cause preserving it in being.

 

[Swa]

Are you referring to the word "bara"? It is used to refer to humans and other things. A Scholastic account of creation and change is consistent with Bible's version.

Gen. 1:1 - "In the beginning God created..." - The word "bara" here refers to either "creation ex nihilo" (out of nothing) or "creation ex materia" (out of a formless or void state, to shape or form).

Gen. 1:21 - "... created the great creatures of the sea ... and every winged bird..."
Gen. 1:27 - "... created mankind..."
Gen. 2:3 - "... all the work of creating that he had done."
Gen. 2:4 - "... the heavens and the earth when they were created,"
- Here the word CAN refer to creation out of nothing but...

Gen. 1:25 - "... made the wild animals..."
Gen. 1:26 - "... make mankind in our image"
Gen. 1:31 - "... all that he had made"
Ps. 104:24 - "... made them all; ... There is the sea, vast and spacious, teeming with creatures beyond number"
Ps. 121:2 - "the Maker of heaven and earth"
- The word "asah" here means to "do" or "make."

Although "bara" is used for God's creation it would be contradictory except for the first sentence to view it as creation ex nihilo because it's used interchangeably to refer to those things that are both created and made and even used together. The few instances where "bara" refers to humans it's used as a concept word like making a clearing in a forest and not to refer to God's type of creation.

I think a clear distinction between creation and change/evolution will benefit discussions surrounding these issues. Also, I think the main difference between the way people see evolution/change is the distinction between existential inertia and existential conservation.

Existential inertia implies that once something is created it will tend to remain in existence without some cause that is needed to keep it in existence.

That is probably the "type of evolution that these guys" believe and I don't. I am curious, do you believe this view?

Existential conservation implies that once things are created they cannot continue to exist for an instant without an active cause preserving it in being.

So you believe in the same molecule to man evolution but that everything is kept in existence externally? That is simply theistic evolution. My view is that of creation from other matter or genetic material and not genetic mutation (guided or unguided) over generations. With regards to existence I believe it's more like a thought that manifests as reality when required.

 

[Techne]

Gen. 1:1 - "In the beginning God created..." - The word "bara" here refers to either "creation ex nihilo" (out of nothing) or "creation ex materia" (out of a formless or void state, to shape or form).

Gen. 1:21 - "... created the great creatures of the sea ... and every winged bird..."
Gen. 1:27 - "... created mankind..."
Gen. 2:3 - "... all the work of creating that he had done."
Gen. 2:4 - "... the heavens and the earth when they were created,"
- Here the word CAN refer to creation out of nothing but...

Gen. 1:25 - "... made the wild animals..."
Gen. 1:26 - "... make mankind in our image"
Gen. 1:31 - "... all that he had made"
Ps. 104:24 - "... made them all; ... There is the sea, vast and spacious, teeming with creatures beyond number"
Ps. 121:2 - "the Maker of heaven and earth"
- The word "asah" here means to "do" or "make."

Although "bara" is used for God's creation it would be contradictory except for the first sentence to view it as creation ex nihilo because it's used interchangeably to refer to those things that are both created and made and even used together. The few instances where "bara" refers to humans it's used as a concept word like making a clearing in a forest and not to refer to God's type of creation.

Sure, I don't think any of this is incompatible with a Scholastic view of change and creation.

So you believe in the same molecule to man evolution but that everything is kept in existence externally? That is simply theistic evolution.

I don't think my view is compatible with "theistic evolution". More specifically, the views that "evolution is a tool used by God to develop human life" or "God's method of creation was to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve" are not things I support. This to me is more like deism and not classical theism.

My view is that of creation from other matter or genetic material and not genetic mutation (guided or unguided) over generations.

To me, the concept of "creation from something else" does not make a lot of sense. Creation to me is simple making something from nothing. Making something from something else is just an example of change. I guess we just have to disagree about this and move on. Anyway, do you think that once something is made it remains in existence without a sustaining cause?

 

[Swa]

I don't think my view is compatible with "theistic evolution". More specifically, the views that "evolution is a tool used by God to develop human life" or "God's method of creation was to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve" are not things I support. This to me is more like deism and not classical theism.

This is the part I don't understand. You believe in evolution but don't seem to support any version I've heard of. Theistic evolution is either that God (1) tinkered with evolution along the way, or (2) created things to naturally evolve without intervention, or (3) created things knowing the ends; this would imply no free will.

To me, the concept of "creation from something else" does not make a lot of sense. Creation to me is simple making something from nothing. Making something from something else is just an example of change. I guess we just have to disagree about this and move on. Anyway, do you think that once something is made it remains in existence without a sustaining cause?

I just see creation as a process of first making the material and then shaping it. It could have been created to remain in existence or to be sustained in existence. The law of entropy suggests to me that it is self sustaining but continually running down much like an old clock with a wind-up spring.


I found the following graph from your link: http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and...Differences-on-the-Question-of-Evolution.aspx

 

[CoolBug]

Very interesting article on random patterns in nature, fractals are such an awesome example of how a simple algorithm can produce amazing patterns that seem designed

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_in_nature

 

[Techne]

This is the part I don't understand. You believe in evolution but don't seem to support any version I've heard of. Theistic evolution is either that God (1) tinkered with evolution along the way, or (2) created things to naturally evolve without intervention, or (3) created things knowing the ends; this would imply no free will.

Classical theism, not "theistic evolution".
Classical theism in a nutshell is basically that if God exists:
1) God exists necessarily, in other words, God could not have not existed.
2) God has no limitations, God is not limited in perfection, in power, in goodness and in knowledge.
3) Nothing can come into being or continue to happen without God creating it and sustaining it in existence.

Such a view does not necessarily negate free will.

I just see creation as a process of first making the material and then shaping it. It could have been created to remain in existence or to be sustained in existence. The law of entropy suggests to me that it is self sustaining but continually running down much like an old clock with a wind-up spring.

Entropy does not suggest existential inertia. At best it describes the natural ends of interacting substances to result in an increase in entropy.

Very interesting article on random patterns in nature, fractals are such an awesome example of how a simple algorithm can produce amazing patterns that seem designed

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_in_nature

Natural patterns (not random patterns) are pretty and interesting.

 

[porchrat]

Look Techne I realise that you are missing being able to comment in PD but come on now. Why do you continue to do this? Perhaps take it to PM or something.