Creation vs. Evolution

[gcthomas]

Structure and order testify to a creator, as I see it. I am glad you have read the Bible. Have you read each of the four gospels?

Structure and order are consistent with either a creator or no creator. Their existence doesn't help you choose directly, but Occam's Razor is useful here, I think.

 

[noguru]

Structure and order testify to a creator, as I see it. I am glad you have read the Bible. Have you read each of the four gospels?

In all honesty, the universe is better described as stochastic, rather than either completely ordered or completely chaotic. It is a mixture of chaos and order. If it were too ordered it would be stifled from that order, if it were too chaotic it would be crippled from the chaos. So it is actually the mixture of these two factors that allows the creativity we see.

 

[Jacob]

Structure and order are consistent with either a creator or no creator. Their existence doesn't help you choose directly, but Occam's Razor is useful here, I think.

I believe they both speak to the beauty of God's design in creation.

 

[Jacob]

In all honesty, the universe is better described as stochastic, rather than either completely ordered or completely chaotic. It is a mixture of chaos and order. If it were too ordered it would be stifled from that order, if it were too chaotic it would be crippled from the chaos. So it is actually the mixture of these two factors that allows the creativity we see.

Notice what I was responding to... that order in God's creation is coming through by observation. A lack of structure at all in any of the universe... would that mean there is not a god? But I believe there is a God, and I am accepting of His revelation of Himself in His creation. Yes, God is a creative God. There is no one else like Him. In fact, there is only one God... and we can know who He is and what He is like.

 

[Jacob]

What is the difference between repeatability and replication?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Structure and order are consistent with either a creator or no creator. Their existence doesn't help you choose directly, but Occam's Razor is useful here, I think.

Don't you think it's unusual that out of all of the planets in our galaxy, we just happen to be on the one that has life, and that humans breathe oxygen, which is so conveniently existing on earth for us to live, but oxygen is not on any other planet in our solar system? Do you think that is a coincidence? You a blind not to believe in a Creator for just those reasons, much less for all the luxuries we have nowadays. Just like God showed Adam and Eve how to make clothes after they discovered they were naked. Someone gave us the ability to form these luxuries, much less the luxuries that our Creator has already formed for us, like a waterfall or the oceans, and the beauty of the plants, flowers and trees. The human body is so complex, it could not have just formed itself from a genome or nucleotide. Wake up, man!! How can you be so? And noguru said you all believed that God oversees evolution. I knew it was too good to be true.

You Really Ought To Reconsider God!

Michael

:rapture:

:duh:

:shocked:

 

[noguru]

Notice what I was responding to... that order in God's creation is coming through by observation. A lack of structure at all in any of the universe... would that mean there is not a god? But I believe there is a God, and I am accepting of His revelation of Himself in His creation. Yes, God is a creative God. There is no one else like Him. In fact, there is only one God... and we can know who He is and what He is like.

Oh, I never said the universe being stochastic was an argument negating the existence of God. Where would you get the idea I did?

Also why do you think a lack of any type of structure in the universe would indicate there is "no God"? Would that not mean that without natural structure of any kind there would have to be something supernatural working?

Also there is no logical necessity to think that structure of some sort is not natural in itself. To assume that anything natural must be completely unstructured is an unwarranted logical assumption. What do you even mean by "the complete lack of structure"? Can you give us a model to help explain what you mean?

 

[noguru]

What is the difference between repeatability and replication?

I think repeat would be in referring specifically to a process. Whereas replication could be in reference to a process but also an also object.

If I were to make copies of something, I would be repeating a process. And I would also be replicating that thing.

 

[gcthomas]

Don't you think it's unusual that out of all of the planets in our galaxy, we just happen to be on the one that has life, and that humans breathe oxygen, which is so conveniently existing on earth for us to live, but oxygen is not on any other planet in our solar system? Do you think that is a coincidence? You a blind not to believe in a Creator for just those reasons, much less for all the luxuries we have nowadays. Just like God showed Adam and Eve how to make clothes after they discovered they were naked. Someone gave us the ability to form these luxuries, much less the luxuries that our Creator has already formed for us, like a waterfall or the oceans, and the beauty of the plants, flowers and trees. The human body is so complex, it could not have just formed itself from a genome or nucleotide. Wake up, man!! How can you be so? And noguru said you all believed that God oversees evolution. I knew it was too good to be true.

You are arguing from personal incredulity, rather than reason.

Why would you be surprised that as living being you should have evolved on a hospitable planet? Where else could you be? On a planet incapable of supporting life? Get a grip.

Yes, the human body is complex, but there has been nearly 5 billion years for it to be perfected, and yet it is far from perfect. Any half decent engineer could design a better skull: stronger and with better shock absorbing ability. Backs are terrible, with all those separate pieces squashing soft tissue between. Bones are too brittle, when a tough material would make impacts much more survivable. Why would a designer use calcium compounds to make bones when there is so much aluminium in the rocks? Wouldn't aluminium alloy be a better choice for a creater making us from the dust? And I would have us able to synthesise vitamin C like almost every other creature.

 

[alwight]

Michael, we are a part of that life which exists where and when it can.
It has to be only a place where life can exist for us to know about it.
We are imo only here because we can be here on this perhaps unique "blue speck" in a vast universe that is otherwise overwhelmingly hostile to biology.


“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”

― Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt

 

[doloresistere]

You are arguing from personal incredulity, rather than reason.

Why would you be surprised that as living being you should have evolved on a hospitable planet? Where else could you be? On a planet incapable of supporting life? Get a grip.

Yes, the human body is complex, but there has been nearly 5 billion years for it to be perfected, and yet it is far from perfect. Any half decent engineer could design a better skull: stronger and with better shock absorbing ability. Backs are terrible, with all those separate pieces squashing soft tissue between. Bones are too brittle, when a tough material would make impacts much more survivable. Why would a designer use calcium compounds to make bones when there is so much aluminium in the rocks? Wouldn't aluminium alloy be a better choice for a creater making us from the dust? And I would have us able to synthesise vitamin C like almost every other creature.

I don't believe there is enough aluminum in the foods we eat to make it possible to create bones with aluminum alloys.

 

[gcthomas]

I don't believe there is enough aluminum in the foods we eat to make it possible to create bones with aluminum alloys.

Dietry aluminium seems to run at about a quarter of the calcium amount, but that would be plenty enough, I think. (about a half gram per day). And if we had aluminium bones, I'm sure we'd have been created with a taste for aluminium rich foods (we'd be nibbling granite or sprinkling clay onto aour breakfast cereal )

 

[Jacob]

Oh, I never said the universe being stochastic was an argument negating the existence of God. Where would you get the idea I did?

There are new ideas about chaos, but the original ideas about chaos were that it disproved God's existence and creation.

Also why do you think a lack of any type of structure in the universe would indicate there is "no God"? Would that not mean that without natural structure of any kind there would have to be something supernatural working?

I believe you are saying you believe God worked order from chaos.

Also there is no logical necessity to think that structure of some sort is not natural in itself. To assume that anything natural must be completely unstructured is an unwarranted logical assumption. What do you even mean by "the complete lack of structure"? Can you give us a model to help explain what you mean?

The question I asked was if you think a lack of structure would mean God doesn't exist.

But regardless of this question which you turned back on me "with a different phrase" we do see structure, yes?

I think repeat would be in referring specifically to a process. Whereas replication could be in reference to a process but also an also object.

If I were to make copies of something, I would be repeating a process. And I would also be replicating that thing.

If I repeat an experiment, later others may want to replicate my results.

 

[noguru]

There are new ideas about chaos, but the original ideas about chaos were that it disproved God's existence and creation.

I am not even sure what complete chaos would look like, are you?

I also do not know how such an assumption can be established, do you?

I believe you are saying you believe God worked order from chaos.

I am talking about the empirical evidence we have regarding the chaotic and the ordered. In the universe we know a few simple principles do turn chaos into order to some degree. But as I pointed out, too much order would be stifling.

The question I asked was if you think a lack of structure would mean God doesn't exist.

I am not even sure how I could make that assumption. I've got no controlled experiment where I can isolate order from chaos and see what the supernatural influence for each would be.

But regardless of this question which you turned back on me "with a different phrase" we do see structure, yes?

Yes, as I pointed out. A few basic principles are all that is needed to bring some order out of chaos. However, I do not make the assumption that such principles cannot be natural.

If I repeat an experiment, later others may want to replicate my results.

And?

 

[Jacob]

I am not even sure what complete chaos would look like, are you?

The question is if order can come from chaos, by itself.

I also do not know how such an assumption can be established, do you?

Established in what way? Do you have an example? If something is established does that mean it is not an assumption... is that what you are driving at?

I am talking about the empirical evidence we have regarding the chaotic and the ordered. In the universe we know a few simple principles do turn chaos into order to some degree. But as I pointed out, too much order would be stifling.

I'm not sure what you mean. I believe God can turn chaos to order. I also believe that things tend to become less ordered on their own, not more ordered.

I am not even sure how I could make that assumption. I've got no controlled experiment where I can isolate order from chaos and see what the supernatural influence for each would be.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand you here. Are you admitting that we cannot determine the origins of the universe by scientific means, because we have no controlled experiment by which to do so?

Yes, as I pointed out. A few basic principles are all that is needed to bring some order out of chaos. However, I do not make the assumption that such principles cannot be natural.

Are you making the assumption that natural processes happen independent of God?

And?

And that would be my understanding of the difference between those two words.

 

[noguru]

The question is if order can come from chaos, by itself.

By "by itself" do you mean "limited to only natural processes"?

Established in what way? Do you have an example? If something is established does that mean it is not an assumption... is that what you are driving at?

You would need to establish the assumption that chaos necessarily = "no God" and that order necessarily = "God". Without a controlled experiment of a universe without a God and a universe with a God, then this cannot be established.

I'm not sure what you mean. I believe God can turn chaos to order.

What you "believe" in a theological discussion is more than likely irrelevant in science. In science we look at empirical evidence and determine the possible conclusions given the evidence.

I also believe that things tend to become less ordered on their own, not more ordered.

I guess that depends on how you define order for each particular system. Are you saying there are no examples of where natural processes can create more order from a previous state of more chaos?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand you here. Are you admitting that we cannot determine the origins of the universe by scientific means, because we have no controlled experiment by which to do so?

No. Though I do think the origins of the universe is another question we cannot answer given our limited empirical evidence. From the small amount available it does seem that the basic components of the universe are eternal, and that they are dynamic. What we see as the universe now, actually appears to be only a state it entered at "The Big Bang".

But in regard to this specific subject, you claimed that order necessarily = "a God", and that chaos necessarily = "no God". Those assumptions are not logically necessary. You would have to supply a controlled experiment where you isolated "the God effect" on the existence of order vs chaos.

It is really a simple idea, but I think not so easy to demonstrate.

Are you making the assumption that natural processes happen independent of God?

No, I thought that is what you were doing?

And that would be my understanding of the difference between those two words.

Oh, wonderful.

 

[Jacob]

By "by itself" do you mean "limited to only natural processes"?

No. I mean without God being involved in any way. I mean there has to be a cause for the created order, and the ultimate cause is God who created/caused everything we know apart from Himself.

You would need to establish the assumption that chaos necessarily = "no God" and that order necessarily = "God". Without a controlled experiment of a universe without a God and a universe with a God, then this cannot be established.

I'm confused about what you are saying. One, God exists. Two, God created. What did He create? This world/universe. We are His creation.

Now, the question for me from what you said here is if we are saying that a controlled experiment can neither prove nor disprove God.

What you "believe" in a theological discussion is more than likely irrelevant in science. In science we look at empirical evidence and determine the possible conclusions given the evidence.

I object to this if you are saying somehow science would be able to disprove God's existence. I believe science is the study of God's creation.

I guess that depends on how you define order for each particular system. Are you saying there are no examples of where natural processes can create more order from a previous state of more chaos?

No. I am saying I don't believe this can happen without some outside influence, even if it is deemed natural is must have been energy coming from outside the system. This/that is my current view.

No. You claimed that order necessarily = "a God", and that chaos necessarily = "no God". Those assumptions are not logically necessary. You would have to supply a controlled experiment where you isolated "the God effect" on the existence of order vs chaos.

That order exists at all speaks to God's existence. That structure exists speaks to His creativity. I have no idea what you mean by "the God effect".

It is really a simple idea, but I think not so easy to demonstrate.

Okay. I'm listening to hear more unless you are meaning to end this idea by saying this.

No, I thought that is what you were doing?

No. The Supernatural, if it exists, would have some bearing or influence on the natural... if one were to posit the Supernatural does not exist and all processes are natural.

Oh, wonderful.

The original experiment ought to be repeated a number of times by the experimenter, before another experimenter seeks to replicate the results and confirm the conclusion.

 

[noguru]

No. I mean without God being involved in any way. I mean there has to be a cause for the created order, and the ultimate cause is God who created/caused everything we know apart from Himself.

So you are assuming that God's input is the only possible way for there to be any amount of order?

How do you establish the logical necessity of that assumption?

I'm confused about what you are saying. One, God exists. Two, God created. What did He create? This world/universe. We are His creation.

You claimed this, not me. You claimed that order/structure is evidence of God's influence. How do you know this? Do you have an example of a universe that is completely chaotic, and for which there is no God.

I think this is rather a simple logical connection based on your claim.

You would need to establish the assumption that chaos necessarily = "no God" and that order necessarily = "God". Without a controlled experiment of a universe without a God and a universe with a God, then this cannot be established.

Now, the question for me from what you said here is if we are saying that a controlled experiment can neither prove nor disprove God.

You are the one claiming that God = order, and that no God = chaos. How do you establish that assumption?

I object to this if you are saying somehow science would be able to disprove God's existence.

The fact that you object to something is irrelevant on its own. Unless you can demonstrate the relevance of your objection. As I have pointed out repeatedly, science cannot disprove God's existence. The reasons for this will become clear as you read further into my responses here.

I believe science is the study of God's creation.

Same here. But I am honest that such is not a scientific conclusion.

No. I am saying I don't believe this can happen without some outside influence, even if it is deemed natural is must have been energy coming from outside the system.

OK, so order might be the result of natural processes, right?

That order exists at all speaks to God's existence.

I know you keep saying this, but you have yet to establish the necessary logical connection for this assumption.

That structure exists speaks to His creativity.

Could be, but again you have yet to establish that "God" necessarily = order/structure, and that "no God" necessarily = chaos.

I have no idea what you mean by "the God effect".

The "God effect" would be a description of your claim of His influence. IOW, "God" necessarily = order/structure, and "no God" necessarily = chaos. This is your claim, you need to support it.

Okay. I'm listening to hear more unless you are meaning to end this idea by saying this.

You are the one claiming the logical necessity of "God" = order/structure, and "no God" = chaos. You need to demonstrate the truth of that claim.

No. The Supernatural, if it exists, would have some bearing or influence on the natural...

What objective criteria would you use to determine that "influence" the supernatural has on the natural?

if one were to posit the Supernatural does not exist and all processes are natural.

Science admits that it cannot comment on the existence of the supernatural. Because there is no way to run a control experiment on the natural universe to see how it would differ based on the existence or non-existence of the supernatural. And given the concept that "supernatural" events are claimed by people to be inconsistent in regard to their effect on what we can see in the natural world, then we cannot verify/falsify them empirically.

The original experiment ought to be repeated a number of times by the experimenter, before another experimenter seeks to replicate the results and confirm the conclusion.

Are you seeking to exert some sort of influence on the scientific methodology?

 

[Jacob]

So you are assuming that God's input is the only possible way for there to be any amount of order?

No. I am assuming (or, believing without room for any exception) that God exists and that the order we see in creation, such as the identification of kinds and the position of man above all other created things that live or dwell upon the earth, speaks to God's intelligence and power.

How do you establish the logical necessity of that assumption?

I don't understand what you are asking here.

You claimed this, not me. You claimed that order/structure is evidence of God's influence. How do you know this? Do you have an example of a universe that is completely chaotic, and for which there is no God.

All I mean is that the natural world is not all there is. It would be irrational to conceive of a universe in which God does not exist knowing that God exists.

I think this is rather a simple logical connection based on your claim.

How so?

You would need to establish the assumption that chaos necessarily = "no God" and that order necessarily = "God". Without a controlled experiment of a universe without a God and a universe with a God, then this cannot be established.

Would you say God exists and that nothing in His creation testifies to His existence?

You are the one claiming that God = order, and that no God = chaos. How do you establish that assumption?

That is not true. The Bible says that in the beginning the earth was formless and void. Some people believe this to be chaos.

The fact that you object to something is irrelevant on its own. Unless you can demonstrate the relevance of your objection. As I have pointed out repeatedly, science cannot disprove God's existence. The reasons for this will become clear as you read further into my responses here.

I agree that science cannot disprove God's existence.

Same here. But I am honest that such is not a scientific conclusion.

Are you saying you do not believe that the conclusion that God created the universe can be a scientific conclusion?

OK, so order might be the result of natural processes, right?

Not natural processes independent of God. God created everything that is "natural".

I know you keep saying this, but you have yet to establish the necessary logical connection for this assumption.

I don't know what you mean. I think you are misinterpreting when I say "order".

Could be, but again you have yet to establish that "God" necessarily = order/structure, and that "no God" necessarily = chaos.

I haven't said no God equals chaos. There is no such thing as "no God" except in the minds of some people.

The "God effect" would be a description of your claim of His influence. IOW, "God" necessarily = order/structure, and "no God" necessarily = chaos. This is your claim, you need to support it.

By influence I recognize people speak of both a Supernatural and a natural, or of both a Supernatural world and the world of the atheist. I am not making the natural world to be the world only for the atheist, or saying that the atheist can only experience the natural. What I am saying is that in identifying a difference between Supernatural and natural we either recognize the influence of God and the Supernatural over the natural or we posit as if we are our own gods and worthy of such a claim that God cannot have any influence over the natural, whether we believe (in) God or not. I am saying the Supernatural, namely God (and the angels), can influence the world God created, whether that name is creation or nature (which may correspond in some minds to "the natural world"). The created order in my mind includes the things we find in nature, but it also speaks to a hierarchy within the things God created, for example that angels are higher than men, or that men are to have dominion over the animals God created.

You are the one claiming the logical necessity of "God" = order/structure, and "no God" = chaos. You need to demonstrate the truth of that claim.

I am doing no such thing. Unless by chaos you mean a world without God.

What objective criteria would you use to determine that "influence" the supernatural has on the natural?

This is where I would say simply that I am a Theist and not a Deist.

Science admits that it cannot comment on the existence of the supernatural. Because there is no way to run a control experiment on the natural universe to see how it would differ based on the existence or non-existence of the supernatural. And given the concept that "supernatural" events are claimed by people to be inconsistent in regard to their effect on what we can see in the natural world, then we cannot verify/falsify them empirically.

I believe we can sense or perceive more than only the natural world. That there are unseen things that we can know about, such as God.

Are you seeking to exert some sort of influence on the scientific methodology?

I don't know what you mean.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear noguru,

I KNOW God EXISTS! I've been visited by Him and also a number of angels. I've also had three visions/carried away in the Spirit, and some visits from the Holy Spirit. I can say things that I know because the Holy Spirit tells me what to say. I believed in Him before He visited me. I just took it as fact that He existed since I was 11 years old. And I was saved when I asked Jesus to come into my heart when I was 12. Ever since I was 18, I've had some incredible experiences and the Lord tells me that I am one of the two olive trees and candlesticks, standing before the God of the whole earth, and one of the two witnesses that shall come prior to Jesus' Return to share the testimony of what I've WITNESSED to others to prepare the way for His Second Coming. And that's what I do. But if I bear witness of myself, none will believe. So I will leave it to God to bear witness of me in due time, whether I have been true to Him or not true. That's what exasperates me so much is that the poor atheists do not believe in God's Creations and that He is in charge of this world. Jesus has been cut off from this earth so that the evil could come to it's highest fruition (See Dan. 9:26). That way man can get a load of what evil and Satan have to offer us, and we can then choose what kind of life we want to live: God's way or Satan's way. Do you think this is God's way going on down here on earth for the past some years?? You just don't know what is going on or where it's at. You are old school. Wait til you start learning what's real and happening at this time instead of wallowing in the evolution pit.

God Has So Much More Going On!!

Michael

:rapture:

:think: