Evolution Through the Lens of Information Theory

Originally posted by RJHinds
..., because God is not a liar.
The Instructor

Genesis 2.17
"... but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

Adam did eat and went on to live another umpteen years.
So god was lying or his horticultural knowledge was not that good.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Genesis 2.17
"... but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

Adam did eat and went on to live another umpteen years.
So god was lying or his horticultural knowledge was not that good.

There was no requirement that Adam die instantly, although some theologians claim he instantly died spiritually at the time he ate the forbidden fruit. Obviously, the writer did not intend us to interpret that Adam's physical death would occur instantly, because he went on to record that Adam lived over 900 years. That does not sound like an instant death to me.

The Instructor

Originally posted by Rank outsider
So the parable of the barren fig tree is a historical account of someone's lack of horticultural expertise?

You don't seem to understand that a parable has two meanings. One is the obvious meaning that the Pharisees would easily understand and the other was a hidden meaning meant for His followers. Both meanings are true, but not everyone will understand both meanings.

The Instructor

Originally posted by googlefudge
See now this is why nobody who knows anything whatsoever at all about science
is prepared to take you even slightly seriously.

THEORIES DO NOT GET PROMOTED UP TO BEING LAWS.

THEORIES CONTAIN LAWS.

A SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS AS GOOD AS IT GETS, THERE IS NOTHING ABOVE IT.


And you have been told this over and over and over and over and over agai ...[text shortened]... r-hand MUST have BEEN proven, or it is known as a hypothesis.



Evolution is a theory.

I'm assuming you are aware this topic has now been moved to the Spirituality forum?



It's only an assumption, so don't try reading too much into it.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Genesis 2.17
"... but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

Adam did eat and went on to live another umpteen years.
So god was lying or his horticultural knowledge was not that good.

Adam is still alive? I did not know that!

Originally posted by RJHinds
There was no requirement that Adam die instantly, although some theologians claim he instantly died spiritually at the time he ate the forbidden fruit. Obviously, the writer did not intend us to interpret that Adam's physical death would occur instantly, because he went on to record that Adam lived over 900 years. That does not sound like an instant death to me.

The Instructor

Oh... so he did die. Darn it! I wanted to meet him and see what he looks like. I suppose this means I'll die someday too. Uh oh, I think the wishful thinking part of my brain is starting to take over. In a few minutes I might transmogrify back into an atheist. Or maybe I'm just constipated, I can't remember if I took care of that this morning or not...

Uh, what was your question again?

Originally posted by lemon lime
Oh... so he did die. Darn it! I wanted to meet him and see what he looks like. I suppose this means I'll die someday too. Uh oh, I think the wishful thinking part of my brain is starting to take over. In a few minutes I might transmogrify back into an atheist. Or maybe I'm just constipated, I can't remember if I took care of that this morning or not...

Uh, what was your question again?

It is not an easy thing for a Christian to call God a liar, now is it?

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is not an easy thing for a Christian to call God a liar, now is it?

The Instructor

It's certainly not a prudent thing to do. That would be like taking Pascal up on his wager and then flushing the investment down the toilet. Or snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You don't seem to understand that a parable has two meanings. One is the obvious meaning that the Pharisees would easily understand and the other was a hidden meaning meant for His followers. Both meanings are true, but not everyone will understand both meanings.

The Instructor

That wasn't the point I was making, as you know.

I don't believe that Jesus was telling an actual story about an actual fig tree that an actual person was trying to grow. It was a metaphorical story he made up to demonstrate deeper meanings. And this, of course, is not lying.

I am not going to bandy messages with you, so I will simply state that you also don't think all the parables are depictions of actual events that actually happened.

So I don't see why you can't except that the creation story was a similar device to demonstrate a greater truth, rather than a historical account of what happened step-by-step.

In fact, I wonder what you would call a being who deliberately attempts to mislead people into believing the world is billions of years old by creating that world in such a way that all the scientific evidence points conclusively to the fact that it is billions of years old.

'Liar' is not it, but it's in that territory.

So, I rather think it is you that are insulting your God, by ascribing to him these deliberately deceptive traits when it is perfectly easy to avoid making these implicitly perjorative statements by interpreting the creation account in a different way.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well then, your god must be actively pruning the human population, introducing tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and so forth and sowing the seeds of Aids, Ebola, tuberculosis, Cystic fibrosis and so on. Nice god you have there. Nothing else explains it.

Which do you believe sonhouse ?

Evolution produced those things or God produced those things ?

And if Evolution did, where is your complaint "Nice evolution you have there." ?

Why is your process so very nasty then ? I don't understand your sarcasm in the instance of God being the Creator but absence of a wisecrack if Evolution is the culprit.

Please explain. You'd rather be done over by the Evolution process than a Creator God ?

Originally posted by sonship
Which do you believe sonhouse ?

Evolution produced those things or God produced those things ?

And if Evolution did, where is your complaint "Nice evolution you have there." ?

Why is your process so very nasty then ? I don't understand your sarcasm in the instance of
God being the Creator but absence of a wisecrack if Evolution is the culpr ...[text shortened]...

Please explain. You'd rather be done over by the Evolution process than a Creator God ?

Complaining about those things if they are the result of evolution is like complaining about the results
of a hurricane on your city.
The hurricane wasn't evil or nasty, it just was.

Complaining about those things if they are the result of your god is like complaining about the results
of a thousand heavy bomber raid on your city.
The heavy bomber raid was done by people, who can be evil ect...


Now there are all kinds of things about life on this planet that suck.
Disease and 'design' flaws being among them.

And these things suck regardless of why they came about.

The difference between them being the arbitrary result of the mindless process of evolution, and the
'carefully' thought out and intended results of gods handiwork... Is that in the latter case there is
a sentient being supposedly capable of moral reasoning behind our sucky world, a being that could
have chosen to make things differently, and that didn't suck.



Evolution is an uncaring force of nature that has no morals, purpose, or desires.

Creatures that are better suited to their environments are more likely to survive long enough to reproduce
and thus are more likely to pass on the genes that made them more successfully to the next generation.

Thus genes that promote survival long enough to reproduce become more common and genes that don't
become less common.

And random mutation provides new genes with corresponding new traits which gives evolution something to
work with.



Nothing in that says that those creatures should enjoy their lives until they have successfully reproduced.
You could be in agonizing pain the whole time as long as it didn't hinder your chances of reproduction.

Evolution is an optimisation process.
Have a listen to the first 8 minutes of this talk. It's on friendly AI but it starts with an example of why evolution
isn't inherently nice.

WE have morals, WE care about outcomes.

Laws of nature don't.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Or maybe I'm just constipated, I can't remember if I took care of that this morning or not...

I don't think you did take care of it.
Because you are still full of it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There was no requirement that Adam die instantly,

Genesis 2.17 amendment

"... but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die in another 900 years.”

god really should be more precise don't you think?

do you think there are other imprecisions in the bible?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
That wasn't the point I was making, as you know.

I don't believe that Jesus was telling an actual story about an actual fig tree that an actual person was trying to grow. It was a metaphorical story he made up to demonstrate deeper meanings. And this, of course, is not lying.

I am not going to bandy messages with you, so I will simply state tha plicitly perjorative statements by interpreting the creation account in a different way.

Pardon me if I misunderstood you. Yes, I think the creation account is an allegory, but it also presents true history as well. Genesis is also a history of the generations of a line of mankind from the first created humans down through Noah and the worldwide flood and all the way to the death of Joseph in Egypt.

Your suggestion you are being deliberately deceived is not true. The evidence does not point conclusively to the fact that the Earth is billions of years old. There are more than one way to interpret the evidence. From the YEC viewpoint, with the knowledge of what catastrophes like volcanic eruptions and floods can do, the evidence can very easily point to a young Earth.

YouTube

The Instructor

Originally posted by googlefudge
WE have morals, WE care about outcomes.

Laws of nature don't.

This is sadly a difficult point for many people to grasp. Too often people think that if something is a law of nature that makes it morally good - one of the common justifications used for genocide is 'survival of the fittest'.