Do Articles Evolve Or Are They Created?

The Reason For My Faith ^ | 5/14/22 | Evolved

[OneVike]

One would think that asking such a question is beyond observed, yet if you truly look at all the facts, then one must consider the idea that maybe, just maybe there is no such thing as an original author. After all, unless you can verify that you sat down next to someone writing or typing an artless from start to finish, how can you honestly testify that the one claiming to write something, indeed did?

Take this post as an example, I am in my office sitting in front of my computer. My wife is on the other side of the house doing what a dedicated woman of the house does, while my german shepherds in the yard lounging in the cool breeze waiting for an unsuspecting rodent, bird, or feline to wonder into their domain. So anyone reading this, cannot honestly claim they know that Iauthored this. Oh I posted it to FreeRepublic, but that's just the most recent step in its evolutionary process. One day it may either grow into something greater, or vanish as many things do in ongoing battle of the survival of the fittest.

What follows is a well evolved argument against Authorism. It makes the point that if you assume this article has an author, then you are coming from a position of faith, not logic. I would tell you who the author of the following piece is, but authors do not exist. As such I'm not violating any copywriter laws. Which should in and of themselves not exist, since you cannot copywrite things that evolve.

On the Origin of Articles

You might think that someone wrote this article. But of course, you would be mistaken. Articles are not written by people. They are the result of chance. Every intelligent person knows it. There might be some people who want you to think that articles are written by people. But this view is totally unscientific. After all, we cannot see the person who allegedly wrote the article. We cannot detect him or her in any way. The claim that this article has an author cannot be empirically verified, and therefore it must be rejected. All we have is the article itself, and we must find a scientific explanation for its origin.

Since no intelligent source can be empirically detected within this article, empirical science must look to the chance processes of nature for its formation. In other words, we must not allow ourselves to think that this article came about from a mind; for this would be unscientific. Since it is not the result of a mind, it follows logically that this article is the result of chance. The article has not been designed – it is not the result of some unseen conscious forethought.

Naysayers might suggest that this article bears evidence of design. They might point out that it has a logical flow, that its sentences are coherent, and that it contains creative information. True enough. But this is only evidence of apparent design at best. We must certainly grant that many articles appear designed, as if they had been planned by a mind and written with creative forethought. But to assume that the design came from some unseen, undetectable author would be unscientific.

What then is the true origin of articles? We know that articles can be copied. Articles on paper can be duplicated using a Xerox machine, and electronic articles can be copied from one computer to another. We also know that errors can occur in this duplication process. A simple glitch in the computer can result in a letter being changed, or a sentence or paragraph being duplicated or removed. Most of these random changes would make the article less readable than the original. But such variations would not be copied. (Who would bother to Xerox a bad article?) And so eventually they would be lost.

We must assume that occasionally, very rarely, a mistake in the copy would actually improve the quality of the article – making it more readable and more interesting. In such cases, the improved article would be much more likely to be copied than the original. In this fashion, articles gradually improve, often growing in length, complexity, and interest. It stands to reason, therefore, that all articles started out as a simple word, or perhaps even a single letter, which was gradually changed as it was duplicated due to errors in the duplication process and selection of the more readable variations.

It is also sensible to conclude that all articles have diverged from a common original article which itself consisted of nothing more than a single word. This is obvious by virtue of the fact that all articles have certain things in common. For example, all articles use words. And in all cases these words are organized into sentences. Many of the words used in many articles are exactly the same! For example, the word “the” appears very commonly in almost all articles. Are we to believe that this is just a coincidence? Clearly not. It is evidence that these articles share a common source. They have each diverged from a common article in the distant past.

Naysayers argue that articles are written by people. But would people use the very same words in different articles? The common words, common grammar, and common sentence structure clearly point to a common origin for articles. It is reasonable to conclude that articles which share more common words and sentences are more closely related than those that have fewer common words and sentences. Clearly this extends to larger works of literature – books for example. Books are the most advanced form of literary diversification, and so they must also be the most recent.

Critics of our position (“authorists”) might object that we have never seen one article transform into a completely different article. In other words, all observed changes have been only minor transformations. But is this really surprising? After all, it would take a very long time for an article to have accumulated enough changes to be classified as a completely different article. And people simply don’t live long enough for this to happen within our lifetime. But the fact that all articles share common words is positive evidence that it has happened, even though the process is too slow to see it in its entirety today. We do see minor transformations today. And it is reasonable to conclude that these minor changes will add up to major changes over long periods of time.

Some readers might be bothered by the fact that we do not have a complete record of how the simpler articles diversified into the wide variety of complex articles in our present world. But this does not in any way disqualify our basic thesis that articles do share a common original source. After all, considering the trillions of variations that must have existed and been destroyed in the vast time necessary for this process, we would expect that the record of links in the chain would be fragmentary at best. And we do know of some links. For example, there are several minor variations of the book “the Hobbit.” These are known to exist, and it is obvious they stem from a common original. So it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that all works of literature share a common source.

Given the slowness of the diversification of articles, it is reasonable to conclude that articles are far older than “authorists” assume. The process of an article becoming longer and more interesting likely takes millions of years – perhaps even hundreds of millions of years. It may even happen in spurts, rapid diversification followed by long periods of relative stasis. This may account for the fact that we find so few intermediate forms in ancient libraries.

One objection to our position is the idea that some sentences in some articles contain a degree of “irreducible complexity.” This is to say that even a minor change of any kind would make the sentence unclear or unreadable. However, this notion fails to consider that multiple simultaneous changes – though rare – can occur in the process of time. The fact that we cannot conceptualize an intermediate sentence does not actually prove that no such intermediate is possible. The process by which articles diversify from a common source is still being studied, and so we do not have the answers to every detail yet. But this does not mean that such answers will not be forthcoming in the process of time. The formation and diversification of articles from a common source is a scientific fact and well supported by the evidence even though some of the details are not yet understood.

To assume that articles have an author is a faith position. It is a belief in something that cannot be perceived with the senses. As such, it is unscientific and should be rejected. If some people feel that they must believe in an author, that’s okay, but please remember that your view is religious and not scientific. Please don’t force it on others or teach it in school.

Just think about it. This very article which you are now reading is the result of countless copying errors which gradually increased its length and complexity over time. How amazing that such a process of nature has resulted in so many wonderful works of literature! Such literature is not the result of some mysterious, unseen, undetectable “author.” It is simply the inevitable result of the mindless duplication process working over unimaginable periods of time.

by, evolved

[Nifster]

I hate autocorrect

[Robert DeLong]

You must obviously believe in an “Author”.

Guilty as charged. 🙂

[OneVike]

Actually the same Hebrew word used for day in Genesis is the same one used in Exodus for taking a day of rest fir the Sabbath

Unless you believe God to Moses to take an era off instead of a day

[OneVike]

:)

[NorthStarOkie]

The standard argument against intelligent design is nothing more than playing with words. It goes ‘That’s “religion”, therefore it’s not “science”, and therefore not a valid alternative to evolution’.
- - - - - -
Intelligent Design IS a a valid alternative to evolution but not in the realm of Science.

A few of the fundamental constraints on the Method of Science include:
1. It must be empirical, i.e. observable.
2. It must be cause and effect, i.e. determinism.
3. It must be natural, i.e. follow the Laws of Physics & Chemistry.

Numbers 1 and 3 rule out Intelligent Design as a scientific artifact since intelligence cannot be observed by experimental means plus it is “supernatural.” No law of science states that e=m(intelligence)squared.

Other philosophies, such as teleology, admit “intelligence” since “purpose” is an aspect of that philosophy, which is the philosophy of religion. I suppose the statement, “Design requires a designer,” is a powerful force if one is comfortable with the idea of a designer. The Christian sees this beauty and asserts that the design that God made is more wonderful than ever.

Having seen the design of science at its peak, medical students assert, “It’s all physiology!” Their observation of the fabulous design of living things moves many to believe that just happened by chance.

There is no evidence to support “theistic evolution.” The evidence needed to support that view is identical to evidence that would support “non-theistic evolution.”

An evolutionist or atheist who claims to have a purpose in life has left the realm of science and entered the realm of religion.

[NorthStarOkie]

God created night and day on the first day.
The sun was created on the fourth day. Until the fourth day it was not possible to have a 24 hour day.

[lasereye]

1. It must be empirical, i.e. observable.
2. It must be cause and effect, i.e. determinism.
3. It must be natural, i.e. follow the Laws of Physics & Chemistry.

ID arguments are generally all three of those. An example is irreducible complexity.

[OneVike]

It had GOD, the sun does not determine light, the One Who Is LIGHT gives light and the thus the moon and the sun just added to the distinction.

The Light Which Created the sun, is so bright the sun is not visible in HIS presence.

This is what evolutionists cannot comprehend, the truth light comes from the creator. The sun is but a symbol of the day, while the moon is the symbol of the night, which were created after HE created the days and nights

[NorthStarOkie]

...Back in the day...
...It took two days for me to drive to the in-laws...
...At this exact time two days from now...

Three different uses of the word “day.”
1. an indefinite period of time
2. not 48 hours to the nanosecond, actually about 12 to 15 hours driving, spread over two days
3. 48 hours.

Genesis 1 is silent whether day is a period of time or 24.000 hours. Choosing one or the other is not a test of fellowship and doesn’t modify the purpose of Genesis 1, showing that all things were the creation of God. I go with the “period of time” and “what difference does it make.”

A similar discussion revolves around the statements that the Lord will rise on the third day. Some preachers have taken that to means 72.0000 hours.

Science doesn’t incorporate the concept of “purpose” in its operation. (Think: Tossing 10 fair coins. The coins do not require a “purpose”.) Intelligent design implies a purpose. The two are mutually exclusive.

In the NOVA show, “The Rise of the Mammals” (IIRC) the commentator stated that since the forest in which little horse (IIRC) lived was disappearing it was “necessary” that little horse evolve.

There is no “necessary” in Science. That phrasing attached “purpose” to the evolution of the little horse so he could survive. I would have expected a phrasing such as, it was a fortunate happening that little horse evolved in such a way that he was able to survive the disappearance of the forest.

Genesis 1: God created everything.
Genesis 2: Man is a special creation.
Genesis 3: God: Now what do I do? (Take that in a very general sense.)
God’s first covenant is with Noah.
God’s second covenant is with Abram. With all the messes that follow, the theme of the Old Testament is, God: “I’m going to keep my covenant with Abraham.”
God’s next covenant is the one we find in the New Testament.

[OneVike]

Actually, if you knew Hebrew you would know the same word and phrase used in Genesis to determine a day is the same word/phrase used in Exodus where God handed Moses the Sabbath law about taking a day of rest. It was not eons, nor generations, it was a physical 24 hour day.

Through the Scriptures of we see the different word/phrases used for different spans of time, but for a 24 hour day it is always the same.

Do you take a 1000 years off to rest, or maybe an eon? No, you take a day.

God knew what HE was saying, even if you are not sure.

Now the 24 hour day did exist before the sun and moon were created, and thus each and every day GOD said this is good.

He did not say it was good, and then use evolution which needs death and destruction to work, He called it good, because death and destruction never entered the universe until after Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good an evil.

To say God did not do as the texts tell us HE did, is borderline Blasphemous, because then you claim GODD lied, or told a fib.

Nothing in GOD is a lie and HE does not jest.

[sport]

Articles were created in Mr. Boyce’s 10th English Class. As were prepositions and dangling infinitaves.

[TexasGator]

Texts were added, removed and edited.

[TexasGator]

Depends

[lasereye]

Texts were added, removed and edited.

That's the kind of fact-free claim atheists always say.

Manuscript evidence is the only fact-based way of determining such a claim. There's zero manuscript evidence of that in the Old Testament.

The Dead Sea scrolls discovered in 1947 provide a set of manuscripts 1,000 years older than any that were found prior to that. It contains parts of every book of the Old Testament with the exception of Esther. It incudes virtually the entire book of Isaiah. It was assumed by certain people that there would be lots of differences between the older manuscripts and the more recent ones. There were essentially no differences.