creationism and human races (adam and eve question)

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Fitness-for-purpose doesn't require a perfect outcome. Indeed, an imperfect outcome (to our mind) might well add fitness for purpose.

Fitness for purpose is defined by the enviroment, and the enviroment is designed by the same designer, so he gets to decide what the purpose is and then decide what would be fit for it. If the designer has infinite resources, time and intelligence then why would the perfect outcome not be the one chosen?

antiskeptic wrote: »

None of which addresses the objection. We don't know what a naturalistic environment would produce for want of an iron-clad one to examine.

We can define what evolution is and how it works. We can define what nature is and how i works. Based on those definitions, we can examine the possibilities of what could be produced in a natural enviroment. If you cant even define what a god is, then how can you hope to define what would be produced in an enviroment ruled by him?

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which is not the same as determing the card picked.

But it is the same as determining the result (a win or loss) which is still a case of changing the chance involved.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's not possible to contradict the whole god idea by admitting that human (I repeat human) level intelligence operating in a time/space environment encounters mystery.

I never said it was, I was merely commenting on how you would rather leave the mystery as a mystery because it may not (I repeat may not, as wether it is or not cant be known until you actually examine it) be good for the argument of gods existence.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Remember that I'm arguing from the (potential) position of a theistic evolutionist - which would have me consider God to arrive at his goal via a process of evolution. That God might strip the deck of cards, which would result in an outcome which doesn't suit his purposes, is a far cry from supposing he need strive for perfection in mechanical design.

How can imperfection suit a perfect being?

antiskeptic wrote: »

An apparent goal of God is to give every man a balanced choice w.r.t. to mans eternal relationship with God.

Either bow down to me or spend an eternity in hell is a balanced choice know is it?

antiskeptic wrote: »

With or without God: that is the question (to put it crudely). In stage setting the realm in which this choice is made (which includes this time/space/earth environment of ours) there must be as much effort given by God to enabling a 'no' vote as there is in enabling a 'yes' vote - if balance in our choice is to be maintained.

That doesn't explain imperfections in this so-called designed universe. Can perfect beings not make a balanced choice?

antiskeptic wrote: »

For someone who is travelling the 'no' vote path, intellectual satisfaction for their choice need be supplied by God if that choice is to be maintained. Inside Natures Giants (and naturalistic evolution at large) is, I feel, part of that intellectual support. Enabled by God for those whose choice is currently 'no'. Some would cry foul that God would disguise himself so. But that's what balanced choice requires.

But surely the level of intellectual support must be decided by god, meaning he gets to decide if there is enough intellectual support for you to support one vote over another, meaning he has full control over which vote you actually take. Where is the balance here?

antiskeptic wrote: »

You can't know for sure that it's only nature driving it because you don't know what only nature driving it is capable of producing on it's own. This, for want of having a card-carrying God-free nature whose products you can examine.

This is a contradiction for you whole "god cutting the deck argument". What nature could in theory produce is the entire deck of outcomes. What it has produced, in your argument, is merely one of a selection of satisfactory outcomes that where already in that deck. If this reality isn't something that could be produced by nature driving it alone, then its not in the original deck, meaning that god must have not just cut the deck, he also added some entirely new cards to it.

Morbert

antiskeptic wrote: »

Remember that I'm arguing from the (potential) position of a theistic evolutionist - which would have me consider God to arrive at his goal via a process of evolution. That God might strip the deck of cards, which would result in an outcome which doesn't suit his purposes, is a far cry from supposing he need strive for perfection in mechanical design.

By stripping the deck, I'm assuming you're referring to the prevention of certain mutations from happening. How would God do this? Would He tweak the laws of quantum mechanics every now and then? Would He temporarily suspend the laws completely and directly stop a mutation from happening?

Atheistic evolutionists assume that no such tinkering is going on in the background because such tinkering does not need to be postulated.

You can't know for sure that it's only nature driving it because you don't know what only nature driving it is capable of producing on it's own. This, for want of having a card-carrying God-free nature whose products you can examine.

You look at the products of evolution, suppose them produced naturalistically (assumption) and then apply Occams Razor to trim off elements whose influence has been rendered unnecessary by that assumption.

Nobody is claiming we know for sure. We are claiming that the assumptions of atheistic evolution are simpler than the assumptions of theistic evolution, and that such atheistic assumptions have no problem explaining natural history. Ockham's razor informs our assumtions.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

In response to the OP, some Young Earth Creationists hold to the concept that the races are the descendants of the sons of Noah. Ken Ham's Creation Museum over in the US claims for example that North African blacks are the descendants of Canaan's son Ham. Ham, incidentally, was cursed by God.

The curse of Ham, rather like the curse of his father Canaan, was used by some Christians (important emphasis there) as a justification for slavery during the 19th century. The North Africans were "cursed", and the rest were not actually descendants of Noah, ergo not human but another "species". Ironically a lot of this was a perversion of emerging ideas regarding evolution, and was a particular annoyance to Darwin who believed in a single origin for the human species (and was an abolitionist to boot).

Ken Ham's lot apparently still hold to the Hamite hypothesis, which means that his sponsors Answers In Genesis do also:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/the_creation_museum_1.php

Now, they're not racist but...

For those who are interested in the truth, it can be found here, straight from the horse's mouth:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/audio/answers-daily/volume-077/curse-ham-not-true

Sam Vimes

Oh is that the page on answersingenesis that they decided to put the truth on, just for the novelty of it? :pac:

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't chance. The probability of something happening that can only happen is 1. Flip a coin with two heads you will get a head. There is no chance.

Theistic evolution is not evolution, it is intelligent design.

I utterly reject TE but, to be fair to those who hold it, would their idea of evolution not be just as much evolution as the materialistic sort?

I mean, substitute theistic selection for natural selection at certain points - evolution continues, no matter who/what did the selection. Even if the selection were continuously selected by God it would still be an evolving process, rather than an instant creation.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Oh is that the page on answersingenesis that they decided to put the truth on, just for the novelty of it? :pac:

No, no - you'll find it on all the pages. Just takes one to be open to it. Can take a bit of courage, but it well worth it. The Truth Shall Make You Free.

wolfsbane

IRISH DAYWALKER wrote: »

adam and eve were the first, god could have created other races after them, as the bible says adams son left the garden of eden and came back with a woman oh yeah!!!

God could have had He wanted to, but He says He didn't.

Nor does the Bible tell us adams son left the garden of eden and came back with a woman. Instead, it tells us Adam & Eve were cast out of the garden and prevented from ever re-entering.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I utterly reject TE but, to be fair to those who hold it, would their idea of evolution not be just as much evolution as the materialistic sort?

I mean, substitute theistic selection for natural selection at certain points - evolution continues, no matter who/what did the selection. Even if the selection were continuously selected by God it would still be an evolving process, rather than an instant creation.

It would be an "evolving process" in the broadest sense, but when people say evolution they tend to mean Darwinian evolution. It wouldn't be Darwinian evolution. It would be evolution in they way a TV's design might evolve, which is still basically Intelligent Design.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, no - you'll find it on all the pages. Just takes one to be open to it. Can take a bit of courage, but it well worth it. The Truth Shall Make You Free.

I would say the same to you except I can point to any page on the internet or any piece of information in existence for that matter, except the information manufactured by people who won't accept the evidence because it contradicts their old book

wolfsbane

Seaneh said:

A lot of jewish historians think that the Phison was either the Ganges or the Sefid and the Gihon to be Nile.

Many consider this area the birthplace of civilization (farming, written language etc) but very few would say that this would be the birthplace of humanity.

I myself see the Adam and Eve story as a metaphor for the population and Genesis as a rough outline of how the world was formed, chronologically, Genesis is immaculate for the most part in how the world is formed, its the time frame that is off, which leads me to believe it to be a metaphor.

I myself am an advocate for theistic evolution. Yes God could have just created us but he moulded the world in such a way that we couldn't have just be ploped on here and left to our own devices, he knew we needed help so he started us with baby steps and as we advanced he expanded out capabilities as a race.

You have no grounds for treating Genesis any differently than Exodus or the other books that give us the history of the world. Your stated reason - its the time frame that is off- makes current theories of dating essential to Biblical understanding. It means every past generation, including Christ and the apostles, were ignorant of the facts when they referred to historic events in Genesis.

If Genesis were written in the form of metaphoric literature, you would be correct in suggesting a non-literal understanding - but it is written as historical narrative. That means it was written to be understood as a factual account. So if evolution is true, the originators of the history were pretending to know something they did not - telling a tall tale - and the Bible is just that.

Think of the other difficulties theistic evolution faces when it tries to square evolution with Genesis: suffering and death must be 'very good'; the first man and woman had soulless apes for parents; Noah built a boat and took some of every kind of animal on board - to avoid a local flood they could have walked away from; etc.

Ask yourself how you tell where history leaves off and metaphor begins. With Adam? Noah? Abraham? Moses? David? Daniel? Christ?

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

It would be an "evolving process" in the broadest sense, but when people say evolution they tend to mean Darwinian evolution. It wouldn't be Darwinian evolution. It would be evolution in they way a TV's design might evolve, which is still basically Intelligent Design.

I agree. But the TEr's are using it in that sense, so it is helpful that you guys are pointing out the difference of definition. From a YEC viewpoint, TE and ID are both evolutionist.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I would say the same to you except I can point to any page on the internet or any piece of information in existence for that matter, except the information manufactured by people who won't accept the evidence because it contradicts their old book

I can point to any page on the internet or any piece of information in existence except the information manufactured by people who won't accept the evidence because it confirms the old book. The evidence is the same for all - the interpretation differs. Only one interpretation is correct.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

If Genesis were written in the form of metaphoric literature, you would be correct in suggesting a non-literal understanding - but it is written as historical narrative. That means it was written to be understood as a factual account. So if evolution is true, the originators of the history were pretending to know something they did not - telling a tall tale - and the Bible is just that.

Ask yourself how you tell where history leaves off and metaphor begins. With Adam? Noah? Abraham? Moses? David? Daniel? Christ?

This is actually something we agree on. There is nothing to indicate which parts are to be taken as metaphor and which as fact. People pretty much arbitrarily decide what particular passages mean based on what they want them to mean or in the case of genesis, because it's clearly not true. They often call this arbitrary decision 'exegesis'

I think that you and other creationists are the only true christians. It's just unfortunate that you have to deny the irrefutable facts of the world around you in order to do it

Rockshamrover

I don't know if the following is appropriate to this thread so apologies in advance if I'm in the wrong place.

here is something that always puzzled me about evolution, maybe I'm thick or just missing the obvious.

Take a creature that has a very short life span like a May fly. How did they evolve given that they only live for a day or two? What did they evolve from? How can they learn to adapt to a changing environment given that they can only experience what happens during their short life.

You would think, or I would think, that a creature like this has all the odds stacked against them being successful but these have obviously been around for millions of years.

Another puzzle to me are creatures that are basically "Home alone". For instance caterpillars are laid as eggs onto leaves (this is all very technical). They hatch out and instantly have all the knowledge they need to survive without need for nurturing or "learning the ropes". How the hell does that work? And how did that get started?

I await your enlightenment.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

The evidence is the same for all - the interpretation differs. Only one interpretation is correct.

I agree. And since the entirety of the scientific community disagrees with your interpretation, bar one or two people who were already creationists before they looked at the evidence, I'm going to stick with my interpretation thanks

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This is actually something we agree on. There is nothing to indicate which parts are to be taken as metaphor and which as fact. People pretty much arbitrarily decide what particular passages mean based on what they want them to mean or in the case of genesis, because it's clearly not true. They often call this arbitrary decision 'exegesis'

I think that you and other creationists are the only true christians. It's just unfortunate that you have to deny the irrefutable facts of the world around you in order to do it

Well, not the only true Christians - the only consistent ones, maybe.:)

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I agree. And since the entirety of the scientific community disagrees with your interpretation, bar one or two people who were already creationists before they looked at the evidence, I'm going to stick with my interpretation thanks

You will find some have come from being evolutionist scientists to being creationist scientists, for example:
Dr David DeWitt
http://creation.com/dr-david-dewitt

Dr A.J. Monty White
http://creation.com/a-j-monty-white-physical-chemistry-in-six-days

Zombrex

Rockshamrover wrote: »

I don't know if the following is appropriate to this thread so apologies in advance if I'm in the wrong place.

here is something that always puzzled me about evolution, maybe I'm thick or just missing the obvious.

Take a creature that has a very short life span like a May fly. How did they evolve given that they only live for a day or two? What did they evolve from? How can they learn to adapt to a changing environment given that they can only experience what happens during their short life.

Evolution is not about the individual adapting to the environment, it is about the species.

A new may fly mutates to have some slight change in ability. This mutations survives in his children and their childrens children etc. If the mutations provides a benefit in the environment the lineage of flies with that mutation will slowly do better than those without it. Eventually they will replace those without it, so all May flies have this mutation. this could take hundreds of generations. And while that is going on they are mutating other abilities all over the place two.

Rockshamrover wrote: »

Another puzzle to me are creatures that are basically "Home alone". For instance caterpillars are laid as eggs onto leaves (this is all very technical). They hatch out and instantly have all the knowledge they need to survive without need for nurturing or "learning the ropes". How the hell does that work? And how did that get started?

that is just instinct, which came before the more complex brains of the more complex animals. Insects survive on a set of evolved responses to stimuli. shadow in sky, run away (might be a bird). they don't think to do this, they just do it. It is hard wired into their brains.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

You will find some have come from being evolutionist scientists to being creationist scientists, for example:
Dr David DeWitt
http://creation.com/dr-david-dewitt

Dr A.J. Monty White
http://creation.com/a-j-monty-white-physical-chemistry-in-six-days

Wolfsbane, to be honest there is nothing on any creationist website that is of any interest to me. I think it would be disrespectful of me to give you the impression that there is any chance of you convincing me of something by linking to such a website or by putting forward any creationist argument for that matter.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

You will find some have come from being evolutionist scientists to being creationist scientists, for example:
Dr David DeWitt
http://creation.com/dr-david-dewitt

Dr A.J. Monty White
http://creation.com/a-j-monty-white-physical-chemistry-in-six-days

*cough*Flat Earth Society*cough*

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Wolfsbane, to be honest there is nothing on any creationist website that is of any interest to me. I think it would be disrespectful of me to give you the impression that there is any chance of you convincing me of something by linking to such a website or by putting forward any creationist argument for that matter.

Horse, Water...

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

You will find some have come from being evolutionist scientists to being creationist scientists, for example:
Dr David DeWitt
http://creation.com/dr-david-dewitt

I think this is some what telling

Dr. David DeWitt
There were two things that really turned me to biblical creation instead of theistic evolution. The first were the passages that say that the word of the Lord is flawless. I came to realize that I trusted what the Bible says about salvation, that Jesus rose from the dead, that He could cure the lame, blind, mute and deaf. He turned water into wine—all in an instant. He multiplied the fishes and loaves, walked on water. I believed all of those miracles, that they happened just as they said. I trusted the Bible in all of those places, so why not also in Genesis where it says God created all things by His word in six days?

The second and most significant point is where evolution cuts to the heart of the gospel. Evolution absolutely requires death … millions of years of it, struggle for existence, survival of the fittest millions of years before man comes on the scene. In this scenario, death is not the enemy but the very means by which God created everything. But the Bible is very clear about this: the wages of sin is death. Death came into the world through Adam's sin. Therefore there was no death prior to the fall of man and therefore there could be no evolution whatsoever before that time.

Notice the reason isn't because the science says so :eek:

Classic, and rather sad, case of a person letting their own religious bias persuade them of a position ahead of the science. He believes the science of evolution is wrong not because it has been convincingly shown to be wrong but because his interpretation of the Bible says it must be wrong.

And heaven forbid he give up his interpretation of the Bible. That is the one that promises him ever lasting paradise in heaven :rolleyes:

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

*cough*Flat Earth Society*cough*

Name-calling exposes the decrepitude of your arguments.

And with such an intellectual hernia, coughing can be dangerous.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

I think this is some what telling

Dr. David DeWitt
There were two things that really turned me to biblical creation instead of theistic evolution. The first were the passages that say that the word of the Lord is flawless. I came to realize that I trusted what the Bible says about salvation, that Jesus rose from the dead, that He could cure the lame, blind, mute and deaf. He turned water into wine—all in an instant. He multiplied the fishes and loaves, walked on water. I believed all of those miracles, that they happened just as they said. I trusted the Bible in all of those places, so why not also in Genesis where it says God created all things by His word in six days?

The second and most significant point is where evolution cuts to the heart of the gospel. Evolution absolutely requires death … millions of years of it, struggle for existence, survival of the fittest millions of years before man comes on the scene. In this scenario, death is not the enemy but the very means by which God created everything. But the Bible is very clear about this: the wages of sin is death. Death came into the world through Adam's sin. Therefore there was no death prior to the fall of man and therefore there could be no evolution whatsoever before that time.

Notice the reason isn't because the science says so :eek:

Classic, and rather sad, case of a person letting their own religious bias persuade them of a position ahead of the science. He believes the science of evolution is wrong not because it has been convincingly shown to be wrong but because his interpretation of the Bible says it must be wrong.

And heaven forbid he give up his interpretation of the Bible. That is the one that promises him ever lasting paradise in heaven :rolleyes:

Yes, it was not the science that overthrew the interpretation on its own. But his belief in the Bible led him to look again at the evidence, and he was then able to see another interpretation was possible. So he moved from evolution to creation in both his religious understanding and his scientific understanding.

Had he not found a scientific theory that supported his religion, he would have had to say so and wait for one to turn up.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, it was not the science that overthrew the interpretation on its own. But his belief in the Bible led him to look again at the evidence, and he was then able to see another interpretation was possible.

Er, no.

Clearly, the theory of molecules-to-man evolution is incompatible with the clear teaching of the Word of God. Therefore, theistic evolution (and its stable-mate, ‘progressive creation’) is incompatible with the Christian faith.

He posts a number of articles on this where all he mentions is that the theory of evolution is incompatible with Christian faith therefore it is wrong

He made up his mind based on his religious beliefs long before he looked at "other interpretations". Once he decided it had to be wrong he found others agreeing with him and was prepared to take on board any crazy idea that held to that confirmed his religious beliefs.

The way you were presenting it made it look like you were putting him forward as a scientist who was convinced by the evidence of Creationism, where that isn't the case at all. He was a scientist who let his religious beliefs, and the need to hold on to them, bias his view of the science he had studied.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Had he not found a scientific theory that supported his religion, he would have had to say so and wait for one to turn up.

It is pretty easy to support anything once you have made your mind up that it has to be true. A true scientist is prepared to abandon his own personal beliefs if they don't match up. He was not prepared to do that, instead of him being wrong about his faith he rationalised that everyone else is wrong about their science.

The obvious reason to do this is because he wanted the trappings of Christian faith, something science doesn't offer him. Science doesn't tell him he is loved by God, science doesn't tell him he is going to live for ever, science doesn't tell him what is right and wrong.

Some people simply can't handle that and retreat into the comfort zone of religious faith and compartmentalise any threats to this comfort. It is sort of sad in a way, he clearly had great scientific ability.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Name-calling exposes the decrepitude of your arguments.

And with such an intellectual hernia, coughing can be dangerous.

The Flat Earth Society example exposes the ridiculousness of rolling out a tiny handful of scientists as some how proof that there is a serious debate going on over the validity of Evolution.

There is as valid a scientific discussion going on over evolution as there is over the flatness of the Earth.

You will always find, some where in the world, people, even educated people, who believe for some reason or another, utter nonsense.

There are scientists who believe we never landed on the moon. There are scientists who believe the world if flat. There are scientists who believe The Lochness monster is real. There are scientists who believe the US government is run by aliens.

The only scientists you have ever presented are ones who have abandoned scientific impartiality for their faith, because they believe they have to pick one and they pick their faith. They then stumble around in the dark trying to find some way to justify this with any sort of quakery.

Which is fair enough, they have enough right to do this as anyone. But the idea that they therefore represent a serious debate about the validity of evolution is ridiculous.

If you pick your religion over the science and then go back and try and shoe horn the science into fitting your religion, as DeWitt has clearly done, you are not representing science. You are representing religion, and very badly representing science. You have abandoned your scientific training and impartiality.

Just because you have "Dr." in front of your name doesn't means you won't do this. Scientists are human and have all the same weaknesses as the rest of us. But when they stop holding themselves to scientific standards they can't be surprised when science rejects them.

Rockshamrover

Wicknight wrote: »

Evolution is not about the individual adapting to the environment, it is about the species.

A new may fly mutates to have some slight change in ability. This mutations survives in his children and their childrens children etc. If the mutations provides a benefit in the environment the lineage of flies with that mutation will slowly do better than those without it. Eventually they will replace those without it, so all May flies have this mutation. this could take hundreds of generations. And while that is going on they are mutating other abilities all over the place two.


that is just instinct, which came before the more complex brains of the more complex animals. Insects survive on a set of evolved responses to stimuli. shadow in sky, run away (might be a bird). they don't think to do this, they just do it. It is hard wired into their brains.

Thanks for the responses to my questions.

That Mayfly thing is still so weird. Each generation of Mayflies would encounter slightly different environmental circumstances. But their individual experience of it would be very short lived. This could mean that generation A comes to life on a day when it's raining so they slowly mutate to prosper in that kind of habitat (over thousands of generations) But generation B comes to life on a extremely warm day etc etc.

I understand that over time as a species they would have experienced every possible combination of environments and that this experience is carried forward in each subsequent generation by those that survived. And so now they can cope with most things that come their way. But how did the first 5 generations survive? Is it all down to luck?

The instinct thing is also pretty amazing.

Thanks again.

Sam Vimes

Rockshamrover wrote: »

Thanks for the responses to my questions.

That Mayfly thing is still so weird. Each generation of Mayflies would encounter slightly different environmental circumstances. But their individual experience of it would be very short lived. This could mean that generation A comes to life on a day when it's raining so they slowly mutate to prosper in that kind of habitat (over thousands of generations) But generation B comes to life on a extremely warm day etc etc.

I understand that over time as a species they would have experienced every possible combination of environments and that this experience is carried forward in each subsequent generation by those that survived. And so now they can cope with most things that come their way. But how did the first 5 generations survive? Is it all down to luck?

The instinct thing is also pretty amazing.

Thanks again.

Mayflys reproduce very quickly and in large numbers. Each mayfly egg will contain a mayfly foetus with slightly different DNA which will give it slightly different characteristics once it grows. Sometimes mutations happen which can result in new characteristics. Say mayflies normally drown when they hit water but one is born with a mutation that means it can fly back out. It didn't try to get this mutation, it was random.

Then all the mayfly babies get blown into some water. All but the one that had this mutation die, meaning he can go around and have sex with all the females, which means the entire next generation will also be able to fly out of the water because he passes on the gene that allows this.

Basically, over the generations millions of random mutations occur at the genetic level before birth. If a mutation happens to be good for the environment the animal will survive but if it's bad, it will die and not pass on this 'bad' mutation. In reality more than 99% of mutations turn out to be bad. There was an experiment done with e-coli where hundreds of millions of mutations happened over 20 years and only about 20 turned out to be beneficial. I can understand why you would see a problem with the fact that they don't live long, if mayflies that drowned in water were born on a rainy day they would indeed die out but over millions of years it all evens out


It's not luck, it's brute force. They produce millions and millions of off spring and some of them are bound to have beneficial mutations. It's similar to flowers who shoot pollen to reproduce. The pollen can float many miles before hitting another flower, which seems very unlikely until you remember that it shoots millions of bits of pollen and 99% of them go nowhere.

Also, mayflies didn't just appear in the world one day and have to deal with the environment. They gradually evolved from single-celled organisms over the course of millions of years