Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chance or Design (Evolution or Creation)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Barbarian observes:
    The universe is much, much more amazing than creationists imagine it to be. Why wouldn't it be? He created it, after all.


    Originally posted by Lon View Post
    You AREN'T a creationist????
    I'm a Christian. And yes, I recognize that some Christians are creationists. But not most of us. Creationism is to creation, what legalism is to legal. The term has been taken over by those who don't accept the way He creates new taxa.

    (I realize I'm being pedantic here, but you've unbelievers watching, so this is pedantically important, you need to be, at times, on the 'our' side whether you disagree about other things.
    You have a point. But I doubt if anyone here is unclear on the distinction between "creationist" and "Christian."

    In a Venn Diagram, "Christian" and "creationist" slightly intersect. You're at that intersection. I'm not. But we're both in the "Christian" section.

    IOW, you have to argue 'in camp' else you are arguing out of it. Be careful where you make your bed and lie down when it comes to the Creator of the universe. This part is important.
    From what I see here and elsewhere, it's easier to slide out of that intersection to merely "creationist, not Christian" for some, creationism has replaced God. I don't think you, personally are in much danger of that, but many are.

    Barbarian observes:
    So, for example, randomly dropping toothpicks on a piece of lined paper could never improve information about pi?
    https://ogden.eu/pi/

    Turns out, it does. The universe is much, much more amazing than creationists imagine it to be. Why wouldn't it be? He created it, after all.

    No, it really doesn't.
    Remember what "information" actually means. It's mathematically shown to be exactly what you see here.

    And I've already demonstrated how a mutation in a population produces new information. If you missed it, I can do the numbers for you.

    We do indeed find patterns mathematically, but he was talking about random chance.
    Do you doubt that God can use contingency for His purposes?

    It has to EITHER be God OR no God when creating. Do you for instance, believe Colossians 1:17?
    Do you agree that this confirms Genesis 1:1? It's the same message, different words, with one important added idea; God remains itimately connected to every particle of creastion. It's a rejection of deism.

    Mathematical statistics and observation aren't the same as random chance.
    "Random chance" wouldn't produce a directed result. And yet, this simple demonstration of order in His creation gives you an increasingly accurate estimate of pi.

    This pi observation is merely a statistic probability that coincides with pi.
    It's not a coincidence. If this were not true, physics would be wildly different, and we wouldn't be here.

    No creationist contests that God made an ordered universe. In fact, it wouldn't be 'random' at all. Just the opposite: part of an ordered and well maintained universe. If you agree on that, then a lot of evolution/creation disagreement can be put to rest by the simple agreement and observation. It'd be totally different, for example, to say that animals 'change' according to laws/guidelines of a well-ordered universe, than saying "random non-ordered unguided 'beneficial' mutation."
    Here's what you're missing:

    The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency
    St. Thomas Aquinas Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1
    This message is hidden because ...

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
      "Random chance" wouldn't produce a directed result. And yet, this simple demonstration of order in His creation gives you an increasingly accurate estimate of pi.
      You understand neither maths nor evolutionary theory.

      It's not random chance at play. The experiment is carefully constructed to produce the desired effect. Try making random changes to the parallel lines or the lengths of the sticks and see how the accuracy to pi improves oh wait you won't because you hate proper correction.
      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
      E≈mc2
      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
      -Bob B.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
        Barbarian observes:
        The universe is much, much more amazing than creationists imagine it to be. Why wouldn't it be? He created it, after all.

        I'm a Christian. And yes, I recognize that some Christians are creationists. But not most of us. Creationism is to creation, what legalism is to legal. The term has been taken over by those who don't accept the way He creates new taxa.



        You have a point. But I doubt if anyone here is unclear on the distinction between "creationist" and "Christian."
        Incorrect. As you believe God 'created' the universe, you are a creationist arguing within camp. You conflate your own problems on TOL. I realize you don't care much about those accusations, but you should. You are NOT to be making your brother/sister to stumble. Such causes a belief, by your own work and hands, that you are not a believer. In fact, you believe in Christ as Savior, and that He created the universe.

        Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
        In a Venn Diagram, "Christian" and "creationist" slightly intersect. You're at that intersection. I'm not. But we're both in the "Christian" section.
        Incorrect. You are labeling 'Creationist' as YEC etc. This is an incorrect line in your diagram. Change it to be correct. You shouldn't be doing TOL discussion simply for entertainment, but for actual meaning and purpose AND you need to be paying attention to Paul's writings when going through these discussions. We are responsible for all our careless or uncaring words. Do better.


        Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
        From what I see here and elsewhere, it's easier to slide out of that intersection to merely "creationist, not Christian" for some, creationism has replaced God. I don't think you, personally are in much danger of that, but many are.

        Barbarian observes:
        So, for example, randomly dropping toothpicks on a piece of lined paper could never improve information about pi?
        https://ogden.eu/pi/

        Turns out, it does. The universe is much, much more amazing than creationists imagine it to be. Why wouldn't it be? He created it, after all.



        Remember what "information" actually means. It's mathematically shown to be exactly what you see here.

        And I've already demonstrated how a mutation in a population produces new information. If you missed it, I can do the numbers for you.
        I can do them too. Rather, it is because there is order in the universe. You have to realize YOU are against randomized evolution. Why not join rather than split hairs all of the time? You believe a Creator made the universe. There are unbelievers in the science community that vigorously argue with you on this point. Why not make this admission? How far removed are you from those in thread?



        Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
        Do you doubt that God can use contingency for His purposes?
        You are using "contingency" as if the universe is in any other hands but God's. Contingency means 'in another's hands.' The difficulty is if you mean contingent "by/in God's hands" or if you mean "Can God allow another to have control over the universe and its laws?" When Thomas Aquinas uses the word, he means "By God's hand." He argues this, in context, saying that what God purposes cannot but happen, by His purpose, by His hand (contingency).

        The problem every Christian has, in any field, especially science is he has to understand that we live in a space that is subjected to the curse AND was originally not designed that way. Romans 8:20 It makes particularly, the Christian's science job more complicated than one who is ignorant of scriptures.



        Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
        Do you agree that this confirms Genesis 1:1? It's the same message, different words, with one important added idea; God remains itimately connected to every particle of creastion. It's a rejection of deism.
        Yes, you are arguing 'for' creation. "Evolutionists" wouldn't accept your view of this term by such language. It is important that Christians recognize that they mean something different than the standard ideas of Darwinism and evolution and related terms. Scientists and educators, ignorant of God and His hand in the universe, state terms and give descriptions void of understanding and often against Him. Below, you argue well for an ordered universe completely in God's hands.


        Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
        "Random chance" wouldn't produce a directed result. And yet, this simple demonstration of order in His creation gives you an increasingly accurate estimate of pi.
        Yes. Argue like this in thread. Sometimes you create a controversy simply by not being more careful. You are not for random chance/chaos in creation (you DO believe in creation, thus a 'creationist'). Try not to be against other Christians on problem definitions



        Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
        It's not a coincidence. If this were not true, physics would be wildly different, and we wouldn't be here.
        Well, you are arguing for a purposeful creation order at that point. Mostly, the term 'evolution' comes with an autonomous tenor that you frankly, don't believe. My contention is your comparison: It is simply a coincidence (coincides) with an ordered universe, which you too are arguing FOR.


        Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
        Here's what you're missing:
        Not missing it at all. I'm saying your argument does not support the term or most people's idea of 'evolution.' Those Aquinas' quote confirms this...

        Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
        The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency
        St. Thomas Aquinas Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1
        "Contingency" means 'in Another's control. Not random chance. Aquinas was arguing FOR 1 Colossians 1:16-20
        My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
        Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
        Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
        Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
        No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
        Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

        ? Yep

        Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

        ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

        Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Stripe View Post
          Try thinking.

          You can't manufacture matches by lighting one and burning down a forest.

          There is more information in a match than there is in a forest fire.
          Try reading. I wasn't talking about information. I was reponding to this:
          Originally posted by Lon View Post
          ... The theory of evolution is an anomaly to every other part of scientific observation where the effect is never greater than the cause, except in evolutionary theory.
          The effect of lighting a match, i.e. the forest fire, is much greater than the cause. i.e. the match being lit.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
            From what I see here and elsewhere, it's easier to slide out of that intersection to merely "creationist, not Christian" for some, creationism has replaced God.

            Who here at TOL do you believe falls into the "creationist, not Christian" category?

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by chair View Post
              Try reading. I wasn't talking about information. I was reponding to this:


              The effect of lighting a match, i.e. the forest fire, is much greater than the cause. i.e. the match being lit.
              Sorry, but no.

              Think a bit harder. You're forgetting the potential energy of the forest.

              When you light a match, and then set it down on and then drop it on a steel plate, the result is a burned match on a steel plate. The fire doesn't spread, because steel doesn't burn very well at the temperatures caused by a match, so therefore, the match burns out before it reaches the pile of wood in the forest underneath it.

              When you light a match, and then use it to light the pile of wood in the forest, the wood (and thus the energy stored within it) is part of the initial equation, it doesn't appear after you put the match on the ground.
              Last edited by JudgeRightly; June 27th, 2019, 04:06 PM.

              Comment


              • #67
                Barbarian observes:
                The universe is much, much more amazing than creationists imagine it to be. Why wouldn't it be? He created it, after all.

                I'm a Christian. And yes, I recognize that some Christians are creationists. But not most of us. Creationism is to creation, what legalism is to legal. The term has been taken over by those who don't accept the way He creates new taxa.

                You have a point. But I doubt if anyone here is unclear on the distinction between "creationist" and "Christian."


                Originally posted by Lon View Post
                Incorrect.
                Can't think of any example here. You know of one?

                As you believe God 'created' the universe, you are a creationist arguing within camp.
                If you accept the idea that creationists are fine with evolution, maybe. Is that your claim?

                I realize you don't care much about those accusations, but you should.
                As you have seen, accusations are generally by those we should ignore. They add little to the discussion, but resentment and rancor.


                You are NOT to be making your brother/sister to stumble.

                We are NOT to be tossing pointless obstacles in the way of unbelievers who might otherwise come to Him. I realize creationism doesn't necessarily do that. Creationists who claim that one who accepts the fact of evolution, is not a genuine Christian are doing exactly that. And I realize you aren't one of those.

                Such causes a belief, by your own work and hands, that you are not a believer.
                No one could read any of these exchanges, and not realize that I am. I mention it in various ways throughout.

                In fact, you believe in Christ as Savior, and that He created the universe.
                Yep. The only difference between me and Christians who are creationists, is that I'm O.K. with the way He did it.

                You are labeling 'Creationist' as YEC etc.
                There are OE creationists, but since the SDAs spread their new doctrines into evangelicals, they are no longer the majority among Christian creationists.

                Barbarian observes:
                In a Venn Diagram, "Christian" and "creationist" slightly intersect. You're at that intersection. I'm not. But we're both in the "Christian" section.

                This is an incorrect line in your diagram. Change it to be correct.
                It's very correct. There are far more Muslims who are creationists than Christians who are creationists. Yes, I mean YE and OE creationists, who do not accept evolution.

                You shouldn't be doing TOL discussion simply for entertainment
                If you aren't, then neither of us is. That's not what this is for. It's not to change the minds of those who get angry and verbally abusive. It's for the onlookers, who remain open-minded.

                but for actual meaning and purpose AND you need to be paying attention to Paul's writings when going through these discussions. We are responsible for all our careless or uncaring words. Do better.
                Perhaps you've confused me with someone else. I haven't offered insults or deliberately baited people here. Indeed, I complimented one person who has been abusive toward me, when I thought he deserved it.

                And if you'll check, on one of these two thread, I also admitted when I was wrong. Who else has done that? It's not just fair; it tends to make one more credible, if one is willing to admit a mistake.

                Barbarian observes:
                And I've already demonstrated how a mutation in a population produces new information. If you missed it, I can do the numbers for you.

                I can do them too.
                If you know this, then we don't have a difference in that regard. Well done.

                Rather, it is because there is order in the universe.
                Of course. Common descent would not be possible if God had not created a universe in the way He did.

                You have to realize YOU are against randomized evolution.
                So was Darwin. His great discovery was that it's not random.

                Why not join rather than split hairs all of the time? You believe a Creator made the universe.
                As I've mentioned repeatedly in these threads. Would you consider counting my posts and showing us the percentage in which I acknowledge God? That might be instructive for both of us.

                You are using "contingency" as if the universe is in any other hands but God's.
                Don't see how. I, for example, cited Aquinas, who uses "contingency" the same way I do, as part of divine providence.

                Contingency means 'in another's hands.'
                It has various meanings in various disciplines, but:

                In religion and theology, contingency often marks the fundamental difference between the Creator and creation. It is used in ontological and cosmological proofs of the existence of God in the sense that all created beings cannot account for their own existence, but—in their contingency—point to a Creator, who is not contingent, but the necessary ground of his or her own being. However, it is disputed whether such a conclusion is valid or itself contingent.
                https://oxfordre.com/religion/view/1...199340378-e-35

                The difficulty is if you mean contingent "by/in God's hands" or if you mean "Can God allow another to have control over the universe and its laws?" When Thomas Aquinas uses the word, he means "By God's hand." He argues this, in context, saying that what God purposes cannot but happen, by His purpose, by His hand (contingency).
                Since God, being omnipotent, can use either necessity or contingency, it's a moot point.

                The problem every Christian has, in any field, especially science is he has to understand that we live in a space that is subjected to the curse AND was originally not designed that way. Romans 8:20
                As God says in Genesis, the curse applies to man, not to other animals. Animals do not have to cultivate and farm to live. That's the human condition. There is no scriptural support whatever for the idea that God changed His creation to harm other animals.

                Yes, you are arguing 'for' creation. "Evolutionists" wouldn't accept your view of this term by such language.
                You are conflating "evolutionist" with "not a theist." That's a major error. Most scientists, the last time I checked, accept a personal God. With world-class biologists like Francis Collins being devout Christians, your assumption is unwarranted.

                It is important that Christians recognize that they mean something different than the standard ideas of Darwinism and evolution and related terms.
                There is nothing whatever unChristian in evolutionary theory. Only if one tries to extend it to the supernatural, is there an issue. And very few scientists are foolish enough to do so; science, by it's very methodology can't do that.

                Scientists and educators, ignorant of God and His hand in the universe, state terms and give descriptions void of understanding and often against Him.
                No, that's wrong. Even Richard Dawkins admits that science can't rule out God.

                Below, you argue well for an ordered universe completely in God's hands.
                Which is quite unscientific. And that's all right. It's O.K. to be unscientific when the issue calls for it. Science can't deal with the question of God and creation, but scientists can.

                Barbarian observes:
                "Random chance" wouldn't produce a directed result. And yet, this simple demonstration of order in His creation gives you an increasingly accurate estimate of pi.

                Yes. Argue like this in thread. Sometimes you create a controversy simply by not being more careful.
                Unfortunately, there are some here, who willfully "misunderstand" what I've written. It's not a simple subject, but it's easy enough to question a person for clarification.

                Assuming that one has honest motives, that is.

                You are not for random chance/chaos in creation
                I accept what God says...

                Ecclesiastes 9:11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.


                Try not to be against other Christians on problem definitions
                Notice I rejoice in the fact that being wrong about this, will not harm the salvation of creationists, and I acknowledge that they are Christians as much as I am. Notice also, that many creationists disparage the faith of Christians who do not accept their views.

                Well, you are arguing for a purposeful creation order at that point. Mostly, the term 'evolution' comes with an autonomous tenor that you frankly, don't believe.
                Don't see how. For example, Darwin, in On the Origin of Species suggested that God just created the first living things:

                There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
                Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species 1878 Chapter XV (1878)

                My contention is your comparison: It is simply a coincidence (coincides) with an ordered universe, which you too are arguing FOR.
                Of course a universe with contingency can also be an ordered universe.

                Thanks for your reasoned and civil post.

                Edit: Chaotic systems do exhibit order, and are not the same thing as random systems.
                Last edited by The Barbarian; June 27th, 2019, 07:45 PM. Reason: eror
                This message is hidden because ...

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                  Sorry, but no.

                  Think a bit harder. You're forgetting the potential energy.

                  When you light a match, and then set it down on and then drop it on a steel plate, the result is a burned match on a steel plate. The fire doesn't spread, because steel doesn't burn very well at the temperatures caused by a match
                  The fire doesn't spread because the steel conducts away the heat faster than the flame can heat steel to it's combustion temperature. Reduce the mass of the steel, and ...

                  This message is hidden because ...

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                    The fire doesn't spread because the steel conducts away the heat faster than the flame can heat steel to it's combustion temperature. Reduce the mass of the steel, and ...

                    Your point?

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                      Your point?
                      Distraction... as usual.
                      All of my ancestors are human.
                      Originally posted by Squeaky
                      That explains why your an idiot.
                      Originally posted by God's Truth
                      Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                      Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                      (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                      1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                      (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                      Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                        Your point?
                        It's not the temperature of the match. It's that the match doesn't have the thermal energy to heat up that much steel. If you reduce the mass of the steel, it becomes quite easy to ignite it with a match.

                        It's why you can start a forest fire in a dry forest by igniting the match and dropping it onto dried litter, but have a very difficult time doing the same thing with a 2X4.

                        Temperature is the average kinetic energy of all the molecules in a substance. Thermal energy is the total kinetic energy of all the molecules in a substance.
                        This message is hidden because ...

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                          Distraction... as usual.
                          Another one of his trolling tactics

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                            Another one of his trolling tactics
                            It's quite a common tactic with lots of the children here.
                            All of my ancestors are human.
                            Originally posted by Squeaky
                            That explains why your an idiot.
                            Originally posted by God's Truth
                            Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                            Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                            (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                            1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                            (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                            Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by chair View Post
                              Try reading. I wasn't talking about information. I was reponding to this:


                              The effect of lighting a match, i.e. the forest fire, is much greater than the cause. i.e. the match being lit.
                              He's talking about genetic information.
                              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                              E≈mc2
                              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                              -Bob B.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Actually, I've never tried it with a match. I know a butane lighter will easily burn steel wool. So I tried it out. I don't have any matches, but a burning splinter of mesquite will ingnite 00 steel wool, which then will burn without further heating.
                                This message is hidden because ...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X