Free Republic

Koehler writes for Tribune Media Services. His e-mail address is bkoehler@tribune.com.

This nut writes for the local paper here in Lewiston, ID. Let's see what kind of interesting replies we can get for him..

-The Hajman-

Who sez so? And wouldn't that mean science actually helps create materialists if that is the 'only' thing kids are allowed to test in school?

Not necessarily. Science can't test anything beyond what we can observe, but it can theorize about that which can't be observed (it just can't prove the unobserved). Materialism assumes science can only be applied to the observed, and the observed is all there is (which doesn't even work for modern theories like Quantum Mechanics). Materialism is a very strict, limited version of science. Science can't prove things like God, but it doesn't require one to assume God doesn't exist in order to work, either. Science isn't anti-God. Materialism however, can be. It's not the definition of science which needs to be addressed in the article, but rather materialism (which is what's used when people say science can't be used for things like Creationism, because that includes God, and science can't include God. Science can't prove Creationism, anymore then it can prove deep-time Evolution, but that doesn't mean science can't be used to test certain aspects of the theory just because it needs God).

-The Hajman-

I don't agree with changing the definition of science. Science can only test the 'natural', or more specifically, the material. Only what can actually be observed (science can however theorize about things which can't be observed). It's not the definition of science that limits IDer's, but rather the incorrect application of the definition of science to materialism (what we observe is all there is) that causes the limitation.

-The Hajman-

I'll definitely look at your ideas, but I'm hoping (at least for basic n-body systems) to get far better efficiency then that (possibly even down to O(2n)), without losing detail. I still have a fair amount of work to do on it, but so far it looks promising. It may take some extra dimensional calculations, but that'd still be better then N^2. Not sure I can apply that efficiency to anything beyond, but perhaps I'll run into some other ideas.

For my axis problems, I have a feeling it has to do with time compression along the axises, inherent in the orthigonally-produced ('simple') rectangular coordinate system. This would produce a dimensional system not having 2 dimensions, but something slightly greater (or smaller, depending on dimensional curvature on the axises). Have to finish a piece up though to test that theory though. Could be wrong, but it'll be fun to find out.

-The Hajman-

Your random walk for mutation/selection sounds rather interesting. And I can see how that'd weaken my previous idea.

You might look at the litterature on "particle filters." Not the dust stuff, the "control of electrical signals" stuff.

That'll help as a start. Thanks.

I asked my prior question for two reasons: 1) for evolution/creation itself, and 2) I'm writing a smart-vector based dense n-body particle system (programmed simulation), and I'm trying to do a brain-cram on complex systems for it (along with creating a better-then O(n^2) algorithm for the n-body system interaction). Any ideas on how different complex systems will act will help (I've already ran into some oddities with the base system I have done already, like having a axis bias when using a rectangular coordinate system for a n-body 2-dimensional particle simulation. Haven't figured that one out yet, though I have theories).

-The Hajman-

However, randomly generated mutations do act like diffusion. There are no "charastics" for diffusion equations. Things happen at all scales.

That's one reason I pinged you. I think I need better books (have Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos and a number of others, but they don't mention that diffusion is necessary for chaotic boundries. I don't think it mentions diffusion period, at least not in name, though I could be missing a concept somewhere. Any suggestions for a more in-depth reference?). How would that affect the dynamics of the random mutation system? Or more specifically, what would be required to gain a possible chaotic boundry like a cusp catastrophe? (The book mentioned gives examples of biological growth such as insect outbreaks as cusp catastrophic effects).

-The Hajman-

Also pinging you guys to my post #60. I'll appriciate any input. Thoughts?

-The Hajman-

Hello Patrick! Long time no see. Life has me busy. Still on the crevo threads I see. How are things fairing for you?

Now for something relating to the thread..

I've been going over chaos theory lately, and wondering how it might apply with evolution (on the macro side of things). Life is basically a chaotic system (might be a weak or strong one, but it is an indirect feedback system, though the denser the system, the higher the error feedback becomes, and the higher the rate of change in the system develops). I've come up with a couple applications to apply to life systems from chaotic boundries.

One such is the cusp catastrophe, a chaotic mechanism which causes a system which appears to be moving in one direction (even linear) to spontaneously shift directions. One example of this could be boiling water, which will spontaneously organize into convection cells when heated. What does this have to do with evolution? I propose the mechanism to give both an explination for very fast changes in a small population (as the organisms reach some critical evolution event, they might hit a chaotic boundry and get shot off in another direction very quickly, making the evolution non-linear), and as a possible boundry for moving from micro to macro evolution.

Why the later? Micro to macro evolution is suggested to be a linear process in which small steps lead simply to larger steps (in macro), and enough of those would eventually lead to the inevitable much larger steps (linear projections of micro evolution), without boundry. The flaw here is, I believe, that the small steps of micro evolution will necessarily lead to the much larger steps of macro evolution via linear projection of the micro evolution mechanism. The reason I believe it may be flawed is because life is a chaotic system, and as such, it may contain chaotic boundries which would break the linear projection of micro to macro (or somewhere along the line), thus giving a possible 'wall' to how far evolution can go, or at least set up a non-linear pathway of evolution somewhere down the line. Either way interrupts the assumed linear progression of micro to macro (though it could be for good or bad, possibly causing assumed projects to be incorrect).

Your thoughts?

-The Hajman-

I doubt this, because one of Gods reasons for creating man was to answer Lucifer's challenge that no created creature of God's would choose service to Him forever... that eventually, any intelligent creation with free will would rebel.

Where's this found?

-The Hajman-

However, I believe science is correct when it says that the earth itself is actually much older.

Science doesn't say this. Man's interpretation of the evidence, man's theory, says this.

-The Hajman-

I find it interesting only because it goes a long way to explaining the differences between a fallen angel, and a demon (disembodied evil spirit). It also gives an alternate point of view to explain fossil remains which pre-date 6000 years. Even the bible that I read suggests in the prefaces that the earth is 6000 years old... and if you are speaking of the "re-made" earth, it is correct. However, I believe science is correct when it says that the earth itself is actually much older.

I found a plausible explination for the fallen between Genesis 1:1, and when the snake visits Eve. What's not stated is how long Adam and Eve were in the garden. Long enough for Adam to name all the creatures, etc. Could have been long enough for a rebellion in Heaven. We get a small clue from Genesis 5:3 - And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:. Seth was born after Abel was slain. They could have been in the garden for a hundred years. (Even if we account for physical age, Adam still could have been in the garden for up to around 80 years or so).

The original greek texts uses a phrase which is seen again in revelations, suggesting that the earth was actually destroyed in Genesis 1:2. I believe the phrase is Tofu Bofu - formless and void - laid waste.

The terms were tohuw [Strong's 08414] (which is 'formless', 'nothingness') and bohuw [Strong's 0922] (which is emptiness, void, waste) [Genesis 1:2] Neither term reads as a verb (which 'laid waste' would be, either in present or past tense).

-The Hajman-

If there was a time period between Genesis 1:1, and Gensis 1:2, why did God have to recreate everything? Even if there was a time period there (which Genesis doesn't give reason to believe), it'd be completely irrevelent after Genesis 1:2 after everything was re-made. So either the time period doesn't exist, or it does exist, but it doesn't matter after Genesis 1:2.

-The Hajman-

Oh how easy it is to argue in the negative.

What negative? I haven't made any claims that something does not exist, nor have I asked you to back any such claims. I'm simply wishing to see what evidence you have for your positive claim (that something existed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2) since the context of the said passage doesn't offer any assistance.

The issue at hand concerns the 6000 vs ??? billion year old earth argument. My point was that the bible does NOT limit the age of the earth itself to 6000 years... That point does NOT depend upon anything CB said. It's right there in Genesis.

No, it's not. Not without going beyond the passage itself. There's no context that gives the claim that it's anything but a direct creation story. The first event is Genesis 1:1. The first discription is Genesis 1:2. Genesis 1:2 contextually follows Genesis 1:1 without pause or interruption. Event, description. Now there may be external references to this event, and a more detailed description may present itself, but within Genesis 1 itself, there's nothing to suggest anything but a 6 day creation. What does that have to do with CB? He's the one (as are you and any who make the positive claim that there's something extra there) who needs to provide evidence for such, either by explaining in the context of Genesis 1, or by bringing up a external passage that validates the argument (though to do so, the external passage would need to do such in it's own context).

You seem to be the one speaking in circles.

If you mean going over some of the same arguments, then that doesn't hurt my argument, for doing so doesn't invalidate such. However, if you mean circular reasoning, then please point it out, and I shall mend it to the best of my ability.

-The Hajman-

That question takes us back to the scriptures Concretebob was referencing.

As I stated above, the passages he refered to don't have the context to validate the argument that Genesis 1:2 describes the remaking of the Earth.

The point is that the 6000 year old earth teaching is not correct, because the creation of the earth takes place before the first day.

This statement could only be valid if you assumed the aforementioned statements in previous posts were valid. However, if this were the case, the point given is being applied to the same as what the point is (the statement that the earth gets remade in Genesis 1:2 is the conclusion that we're trying to reach, and the validity of it is what we're trying to determine. However, you used that conclusion to try to validate your point. Problem is, your point is supposed to validate the conclusion, as there is no other premise given, nor other conclusion attempting to be reached, that I'm aware of). Your point is flawed due to Circular Reasoning, and therefore your point in invalid.

If you have anything substantial to bring forth, I'll be happy to look at it.

-The Hajman-

Nothing existed before Gen 1:1. It existed between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. More time passes between these two verses than throughout the rest of the bible. Creation (as in the 6 day creation) occurs AFTER Genesis 1:2, and is the starting point of the 6000 year old creation. (The 6 day creation does NOT include formation of the earth.)

I'd be interested in knowing how you come up with that interpretation, since neither Genesis 1:1, nor Genesis 1:2, seems to give any context which would allow the two verses to be broken into two distinctly seperate events.

-The Hajman-

The Bible clearly states in Genesis that on the sixth day God created "all races"

No, actually, the Bible states in Genesis 1:27 - So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 'Man' can be interpreted as either mankind (in which case, it doesn't specify how many humans God created at first. Could have been 2, could have been 1000. It would refer to the start of the being called 'man'). Or it can be interpreted as the first man, Adam, a distinct human. Is there any context further on to provide a more accurate distinction of what, or who, God created? There is, in Genesis 2:7-8 - 7: And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 8: And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. Note verse 7 provides the event of man's creation. It can be taken as general mankind, or specific man. Verse 8 however provides us with the clue we need to intrepret it correctly: .. and there he put the man. It tells us that 'man' is a very specific being, literally Adam. So what, or who, did God create when He created man? The answer would be a single man, Adam.

think of "day" as a time period

We could do that, but each 'time period' in Genesis is augmented by a very specific time span, and each 'time period' recieves the same time span: And the evening and the morning were the first day. In the passage, evening is `ereb [Strong's 0615], which means a literal evening/night/sunset (as in, after the sun's gone down), and has no other stated meaning. Day is boqer [Strong's 01242], and means the end of night, comming of daylight, etc., which is a literal day (when the sun is up), and has no other stated meaning (except for of bright joy after night of distress, which has no context here).

So we have 7 time periods, with 6 distinct seperations, all of which have the same seperation (evening and morning), which terms specifically, and explicitly, denote a time period of no sun, and sun (24 hour days). How do you get your interpretation of anything different (which the passages leave little (or no) space to work around)?

-The Hajman-

The exact words of Genesis 1:2 "and the earth was (became) formless and void", are recorded in chapter 4 verse 26 of Jeremiah.

One, the term became can also be easily interpreted as become in Genesis 1:2, and two, the term earth in Jeremiah 4:26 is talking about land/country, not the planet Earth. These two passages simply don't match (apples and oranges), and neither provide context that would validate your particular interpretation that something existed before Genesis 1:1. Aside from that, Genesis 1:1 states that God created the heaven and the earth. It does not say God reformed the heaven and the earth.

-The Hajman-

Sumerian text pre-dates Biblical events by thousands of years.
Who were they talking about?

If the Sumerian text describes prior events which contradict the Bible, then one of them is wrong, and it would be invalid to try to use one to augment the other in the context of the contradiction. However, if one is to attempt this, one should have at least contextual-valid passages from the book being augmented (in this case the Bible) that would agree with the other book (Sumerian text in this case). However, the passages you have provided so far have been out of context, or the translation assumed upon the validity of the conclusion (which you did with the argument you gave in the earth was without form. Your interpretation could only be valid if the conclusion that there was something before Genesis 1:1 was valid). This is Circular Reasoning, and not a good method of argumentation to rely on.

-The Hajman-

Jeremiah 4:23-2 ... Jeremiah looked into the ages before Adam and described the destruction of the earth.

Actually, Jeremiah 4 isn't describing a pre-Adam civilization (there's no context for that interpretation, and one can only get that type of interpretation if one takes such passages as Jeremiah 4:23 out of their context within the rest of the passage). It's a warning to Judah of judgement, describing what'll happen to them if they continue on their path (basically, everything they've known will be destroyed).

As for the term 'earth', the word used is erets [Strong's 0776], which can mean either the planet earth (how you're interpreting it), or as land/country/territory/etc. (how it'd be interpreted in the context to the rest of Jeremiah). There's nothing to suggest this verse means anything but the utter destruction of a land (it's discriptive, not historical, in the provided context). That there will be no man in that land is referenced earlier by Jeremiah 4:7 - The lion is come up from his thicket, and the destroyer of the Gentiles is on his way; he is gone forth from his place to make thy land desolate; [and] thy cities shall be laid waste, without an inhabitant. Note: It stated without an inhabitant. This doesn't mean that all life on planet earth perished, but that the land would be so completely laid to waist that no one would be left alive there. This passage doesn't hold your interpretation, because your interpretation holds no true context to the passage.

-The Hajman-

Actually it's a mis-translation, which has been documented.

The context of the phrase is that the Earth did become without form and was void.

IOW, something happened to cause God to start over again.

This is a point that's partially valid. Yes, the context is that Earth did become that, but that requires only a prior event caused the Earth to become without form or void. That event is explicitly stated in Genesis 1:1 as the creation of the Earth, for that caused the Earth to become (or 'to be') without form or void. There's nothing in context which specifies or infers that something started over again, but rather that it just started (same mistake made with replenish). If you look at the other terms along with become from hayah [Strong's 01961], you'll see that their context is 'to be' (to be, become, come to pass, exist, [to] happen, take place, come to pass, to become like, to be instituted, be established, etc). None require the necessity of replacing a prior existance, nor do any infer this. Only the 'to replace' definition of 'become' could be translated that way, and there's no reason to do such, either in context, or for the term hayah itself, when the term explains Genesis 1:1 just fine in context, and doesn't provide any other context to be interpreted by.

-The Hajman-