Evolutionism vs creationism

[gut]

> this guy not only realized that not only was there no evidence of a global Flood

i notice the word 'global' coming up, again. I still find it rather difficult to believe
that the bible uses that word, as nobody alive at that time knew they lived on a globe. Seems
like they were searching for a 'biblical' event that the bible never did claim to have happened.
So naturally, the logical thing to do when faced with the absence of proof for a non-existant
'biblical' event that never occured is to stop believing the things that the bible never told
you. Excellent. Makes perfect sense.

> I mean we have gut here talking about imprints of a coin implying that there is a coin.
We aren't even talking about imprints of a coin, but massive geological formation changes.

Strikes me as being a sentence very similar to:
I mean, we have infernovia here talking about geological changes. We aren't even talking about
geological changes, but the price of tea in china.
The two compared aspects of that sentence seem to have no relation. Did I imply that geological
change = imprint of god?

> As for the idea that evolution is a bunch of chance elements, yeah you can look
at it like that. In fact, the whole universe is a flux anyway and you can't isolate one thing from
another, so the basis of this idea is not correct (the idea itself is a misinterpretation of
this basic idea)

So in sentence 1, you tell me it is a logical view, then in sentence 2, you tell me it isn't.
At least I can agree with half of what you say.

> We don't know. And we can't, because the universe is defined as "everything."

I'm not sure the 'universe' is defined as everything. I would not say abstract things are part
of the universe, such as dreams or philosophy. Maybe after they are shared they are... maybe.

> We would have no way of actually interacting with it

What if it interacted with you, and only mentally?

> Eventually, in the span of billions of years, one of these mutations allows them to also interact with
the self-replicating process

So now it is 'enough blioloins of years' to start the process, and another 'enough bliolloions
of years' to mutate into boys and girls. Wanna to add another on for the developement of
pentium-chip-creating level of congitive abilities? Why not?

[JellySlayer]

> this guy not only realized that not only was there no evidence of a global Flood

i notice the word 'global' coming up, again. I still find it rather difficult to believe
that the bible uses that word, as nobody alive at that time knew they lived on a globe. Seems
like they were searching for a 'biblical' event that the bible never did claim to have happened.
So naturally, the logical thing to do when faced with the absence of proof for a non-existant
'biblical' event that never occured is to stop believing the things that the bible never told
you. Excellent. Makes perfect sense.

The Bible uses the words "the whole earth" and "all creatures" and the like. Genesis 7:19, as but one example, pretty strongly suggests a global flood:

"19The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered."

What if it interacted with you, and only mentally?

Then it interacted with you physically. The "mind" is created by the brain, and it is responds to stimulus exerted on the brain. If the brain is damaged, the conscious mind of the person can, and often does, change. People suffering traumatic brain injuries may develop a completely different personality, despite retaining all of their original memories (or not, as the case may be). If something were interacting with you "mentally" then we should be able to see it by examining the electrochemistry of the brain.

[infernovia]

i notice the word 'global' coming up, again. I still find it rather difficult to believe
that the bible uses that word, as nobody alive at that time knew they lived on a globe.

It could be "he flooded the world." It doesn't matter, the idea is that every spot on the planet was "flooded" and the animals which survived were the one that lived in the ark. Of course, there are signs of a more local flood in the "cradle of the world" around this time period, but certainly there were many animals that survived it outside of human interaction.

Strikes me as being a sentence very similar to:
I mean, we have infernovia here talking about geological changes. We aren't even talking about
geological changes, but the price of tea in china.
The two compared aspects of that sentence seem to have no relation. Did I imply that geological
change = imprint of god?

No, I am implying that a geological shift of a magnitude that we are talking about will leave an imprint bigger than a coin on a soil.

So in sentence 1, you tell me it is a logical view, then in sentence 2, you tell me it isn't.
At least I can agree with half of what you say.

Yeah, I didn't say it right. What I meant was that the whole universe is a flux. And the probability game is simply a misinterpretation of it by attributing identity to it. The idea that the identity doesn't change is incorrect, the idea of the flux however is correct.

I'm not sure the 'universe' is defined as everything. I would not say abstract things are part
of the universe, such as dreams or philosophy. Maybe after they are shared they are... maybe.

Thoughts and idea are part of the universe, they exist as electrons and the nerve interactions in your brain. This is only super-emphasized by the fact that you cannot think about something "outside of the universe," for you would have no knowledge of it.

What if it interacted with you, and only mentally?

Mental interaction requires, first of all, a physical interaction. For the mind and the body are not separate and function on the same basic physic, that is that it requires something to affect it to interact with it. There is nothing in our mind that is beyond the physical, if something did not affect us physically (aka, it is smaller than a photon) it would actually have no physical effect on our nervous system and by extension, the senses, meaning you would not know about it.

So now it is 'enough blioloins of years' to start the process, and another 'enough bliolloions
of years' to mutate into boys and girls. Wanna to add another on for the developement of
pentium-chip-creating level of congitive abilities? Why not?

No, because the functionality of life varies as soon as the first big step happened, the birth of the mortal being. Before then, all that would happen is simple cloning, moving, eating, processing. Aka, a really slow process that relies on things like radiation and very minute chance of mutation in the cloning process. This means that they really don't vary significantly from the original source so needs a long time to showcase large mutations. These guys can only be defined as "the immortals," their identity simply would not disappear.

But once the organisms themselves interact with the cloning process, thats when FORCED variance appears, aka the birth of the sexed mortal being (their child after all, cannot be considered a "clone", and their identity (the genetic code) has a very real chance of disappearing after the aging process). And from this point on, these chemical processes takes shorter and shorter time to diversify itself. So the first revolution took the longest, but everything after that has become much shorter. If another cataclysm happened, where 96% of the life on earth was destroyed, it would not the original billions of years to create complex organism.

[infernovia]

And finally the question of the i7-980x doesn't appear through the same process as evolution?

Because the naturally self-selecting process of evolution first needs a form of replication, excess energy, movement. This excessive consumption (it expends energy to get energy) and the replication is the first step required for increased variance. So the reason that these chipsets did not occur through evolution is naturally because of the lack of the replication process and the lack of ability to gain power. If you could build a way for an intel-980x to consume power (indeed, it would need to consume more power than it really "needs") to generate clones of itself without needing the forced handling of a human beyond the first step, evolution will take hold.

But this does not mean the i7-980x is going to transform into a quantum computer, it might become similar to a cockroach instead.

[gut]

>> I still find it rather difficult to believe that the bible uses that
word, as nobody alive at that time knew they lived on a globe

> so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered


Well, I'm quite surprised that those who wrote the bible did indeed manage to say 'global'
without actually saying 'global'... or knowing that they lived on a globe. I suppose I'll
never get too old to be amazed.

> The "mind" is created by the brain, and it is responds to stimulus exerted on the brain

I'll agree that electons are matter in the universe, and therefore OF the universe, but it is
the concept of 'patterns of electron flow' that I'm not sure about. That is because patterns,
or even numbers for that matter, aren't really matter. They are concepts only.

> a geological shift of a magnitude that we are talking about will leave an imprint bigger
than a coin on a soil

I think you misunderstood what I was saying with the 'coin imprint' thing.

> the whole universe is a flux.

I'm maybe having trouble with your use of the word 'flux'. Coming from an electical
background, my definition of flux matches both wiki definitions I could find quickly:

"> In the various subfields of physics, there exist two common usages
of the term flux, both with rigorous mathematical frameworks.

In the study of transport phenomena (heat transfer, mass transfer and fluid dynamics),
flux is defined as the amount that flows through a unit area per unit time[1] Flux in
this definition is a vector.

In the field of electromagnetism and mathematics, flux is usually the integral of a
vector quantity, "

> the probability game is simply a misinterpretation of it by attributing identity to it.

I'll agree about the mistake of attributing identity to probability, but will disagree that
I have done that

> The idea that the identity doesn't change is incorrect, the idea of the flux however is correct.

So...
universe=flux
probability=identity
identity=change
flux=correct

> they exist as electrons and the nerve interactions in your brain.

Electrons? Yes. Patterns... I'm not so sure.

> This is only super-emphasized by the fact that you cannot think about
something "outside of the universe," for you would have no knowledge of it

See, this is where we disagree. I think it is possible to create.

> Mental interaction requires, first of all, a physical interaction.

Yes, a song requires an instrument.

> There is nothing in our mind that is beyond the physical

I think maybe there is.

> So the first revolution took the longest, but everything after that has become much shorter.

So you are saying evolution from primordial ooze to human is now on scale of 'miliards' only?

> And finally the question of the i7-980x doesn't appear through the same process as evolution?

Who asked that?

[infernovia]

Well, I'm quite surprised that those who wrote the bible did indeed manage to say 'global'
without actually saying 'global'... or knowing that they lived on a globe. I suppose I'll
never get too old to be amazed.

If they said "the whole world" or "everything under the heavens" and we know that "everything under heaven" is a globe, would it be global or not? What other word do you want to describe it?

If its local, then its local. As I said, there is geological data in the "cradle of the world" during this time period. But that would contradict the claim of fundamental creationists.

See, this is where we disagree. I think it is possible to create.

Oh, I am not saying that there isn't anything outside of the universe, I am just saying it wouldn't matter.

How would you know? How would you interact with it? Since you deal with electrical components, I assume you understand the trouble with interacting particles that are tiny, and probably know of the problem of quantum mechanics. So, the problem I want to point out here is that anything measurable at anypoint of the universe (meaning anything that interacts with the universe) is part of the universe. So how can it leave the universe without interacting with anyother particle?

Thus I don't think it is possible to "create" such things. Unless you mean a signifier without a signified, which clearly does happen, but this isn't what we are talking about.

I'll agree about the mistake of attributing identity to probability, but will disagree that
I have done that

The question then, is that why would you consider a human being a "design" if this is so? A human being is simply functional. That it has bent the environment to its will can perfectly be accounted by evolution.

And yes, you could have an omnipotent being that just says "oh yeah, now there is heaven." But thats like creating an omnipotent being that says "oh yeah, now there is local-realism and quantum mechanics," its just intellectual laziness.

identity=change

As in identity is simply a snapshot of a system shifting (becoming, as changing implies one identity to another) over time (which is essentially what "the flux" is used as). So you can't nail down these things into an identity. An identification is simply a willful abstraction/error one uses for useful results. It is the identity that must be highlighted as the error here, not the other way around.

So you are saying evolution from primordial ooze to human is now on scale of 'miliards' only?

Why yes, in the matter of timespan, and not just humans but any complex creatures ever. As I said, the beginning were filled with immortal unsexed beings which were completely reliant on cloning. The sexual revolution was the first big step. But the human is simply an abstraction, the new life may evolve in such a way that "humanity" does not even come up...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian...tinction_Event

Just as Dinosaurs (or any such large reptillian creatures) did not succeed in the new generation and fell to the mammals, there is no guarantee that the abstraction called "human" will come up after an extinction event. Although there might be some animals very reliant on memory, analysis, and a modular ability to see different patterns as it sees fit to survive/repopulate.

> Mental interaction requires, first of all, a physical interaction.

Yes, a song requires an instrument.

> There is nothing in our mind that is beyond the physical

I think maybe there is.

I don't see how these answers correlate. And what part of our mind is "beyond physical?"


Ok, but forget about most of that. The question is "why does gut feel that believing in a God is necessary to understand the world?" Or more accurately, "why does he feel that it is important to bash the big no-answers in science, but not the big no-answer of God?"

Is it because, in his intelligence, he realizes that morality cannot be justified without an eternal being validating the existence of his ethics? Is it because he realizes that in this new model, morality would be little more than systems we create, and thus we would have to go beyond good and evil and appreciate the chaos we would be thrown into? Is it because he has been influenced by a little too many platonists?

Maybe. Probably all of the above.

As Neitzsche said, our language is composed of errors from our ancestors that has been untouched for thousands of years. And it is the same with "common sense." One needs a little faith in his senses to interpret things that has not become "common."

[Grey]

> this guy not only realized that not only was there no evidence of a global Flood

i notice the word 'global' coming up, again. I still find it rather difficult to believe
that the bible uses that word, as nobody alive at that time knew they lived on a globe. Seems
like they were searching for a 'biblical' event that the bible never did claim to have happened.
So naturally, the logical thing to do when faced with the absence of proof for a non-existant
'biblical' event that never occured is to stop believing the things that the bible never told
you. Excellent. Makes perfect sense.

Actually people were fully aware in ancient times that the world is round. There's plenty of evidence for it, and ancient greeks even went so far as to make reasonably accurate guesses to the Earth's circumference. Even at the time of Columbus it was well-known - the idea that he set out to prove it is nonsense (he just wanted to find a new trade route to India, and people at the time believed the ocean was far too big for anyone to survive).

Of course I'm sure JellySlayer is paraphrasing when it comes to the Bible. However Genesis itself does quite clearly describe the flood as covering all lands, and drowning all people and animals. Something which didn't actually happen.

[Silfir]

And which nobody with half a brain - or at least with the willingness to apply half a brain - actually believes did happen.

[JellySlayer]

And which nobody with half a brain - or at least with the willingness to apply half a brain - actually believes did happen.

Well, I think that might be part of the problem. This is from 2004. Quoted in part below.

An ABC News poll released Sunday found that 61 percent of Americans believe the account of creation in the Bible's book of Genesis is "literally true" rather than a story meant as a "lesson."

Sixty percent believe in the story of Noah's ark and a global flood, while 64 percent agree that Moses parted the Red Sea to save fleeing Jews from their Egyptian captors.

The poll, with a margin of error of 3 percentage points, was conducted Feb. 6 to 10 among 1,011 adults.

[...]

Meanwhile, a Gallup Poll of 1,004 adults released Dec. 30 found that 61 percent of Americans believe "religion can answer all or most of today's problems,"

[gut]

> What other word do you want to describe it?

Globe is fine. As I said, I just didn't think the people who wrote the bible knew Earth was round.

>>> This is only super-emphasized by the fact that you cannot think about
something "outside of the universe," for you would have no knowledge of it

>> See, this is where we disagree. I think it is possible to create.

> Oh, I am not saying that there isn't anything outside of the universe, I am just saying it
wouldn't matter.

There were no computers until invented. They went from not being in the universe to being in
the universe. I'm not talking about the elements from which they are made, but rather, the
design.

> How would you know? How would you interact with it?

I have not designed computers, but have created other things. As for how to interact with
the supernatural, I'll repeat what I've said earlier in this thread: I have never heard
voices or 'spoken with god'. You are confusing me with Jellyslayer

> I assume you understand the trouble with interacting particles that are tiny,
and probably know of the problem of quantum mechanic

Quantum goes beyond my interests, sadly.

> So how can it leave the universe without interacting with anyother particle?

Dunno about thing leaving the universe, and find myself kinda wondering how the conversation
got to this.

> Thus I don't think it is possible to "create" such things

Clearly, there IS a concept of god, so if it is a concept, and (according to your above
sentence) it is only possible to contemplate things that are part of the universe, that
means god is part of the universe

>> I'll agree about the mistake of attributing identity to probability, but will disagree that
I have done that

> The question then, is that why would you consider a human being a "design" if this is so?

I consider human being a design do to how low the probability is, from the alternate theory. I
have been rather clear on that from the begining of this thread. Considering a probability as
being low is not the same as giving it an identity. Let me put it like this: There are people
who have won the lottery (multi-million-dollar ones) repeatedly, then suddenly stopped winning
after being investigated. Am I going to call it coincidence or foul. Remember, I have no
evidence upon which to base my decision, only my knowledge of probability.

>> identity=change

> As in identity is simply a snapshot of a system shifting (becoming, as changing implies one
identity to another

So now:
identity=changing identity

> It is the identity that must be highlighted as the error here, not the other way around

So it is a bad idea to take a snapshot of a changing system, then name it. OK, but I don't
really see how that relates to what we were talking about.

>> So you are saying evolution from primordial ooze to human is now on scale of 'miliards' only?

> Why yes

Excellent. It is kinda difficult to get some people to agree to that. The problem is, the less
time you have to work with, the less plausible evolution becomes, even if I grant you the
'imortal being' starting condition which is an idea I am not entirely sold on. Because some
have presented objection to this before, I'll give an example. Do you believe a single celled
organism could evolve into a human-like organism in 1000 generations? OK, how about 10K? etc...
You might not like the idea of associating a probability to each, but I do. I'll grant 100%
to infinity, but for the mere 10K generations it would be a number too small to type. Now,
considering time limits (only millions now), natural disasters, diseases, etc... and I just
don't think it is possible.

> The question is "why does gut feel that believing in a God is necessary to understand the world?"

No viable alternative exists. As I have stated, I am unwilling to believe, as you do, that
things bump together long enough, and make humans. No matter how you try to rephrase it, that
is what you are saying.

> "why does he feel that it is important to bash the big no-answers in science,
but not the big no-answer of God?"

I'm not doing that. If you search back through this thread, you will see my responses to those
on the religious side whom I consider aren't thinking logically. I do kinda like pointing out
the flaws in both the 'evolution explains it all' and 'god just made it that way' opinions.

> in his intelligence, he realizes that morality cannot be justified without an eternal being validating

Nonsense, and proof that you didn't read my previous posts. I'll cite this one from dorten
vs jellyslayer, on the topic of god's morality:


Dorten:
>> However there was mass murder, and I support it.

gut:
> I don't like the idea of being merciful to victomizers at all, and sometimes desire for them to die,
but if it was up to me to pull the trigger, I wouldn't if I had a choice. With all power at god's
disposal, I would imagine options to be possible. Murdering when one doesn't have to doesn't sound
very christian

> Actually people were fully aware in ancient times that the world is round

The people who wrote genesis did? This was my hanging point. I am also of the 'how did
the animals fit' kind.