PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Question for creationists

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
GETREAL

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am a bit confused about your attitude towards evolultion on this forum. You keep asking for proof in regards to evolution, yet NONE of you can provide ANY proof of a creator. The were books written, by the same people who are victims of evolution (yes, Moses evolved too!). The first book was supposedly written by Moses. Yet it covers his death as well. Did he know of his own death beforehand? The bible was written by people who thought the earth was flat! Species cannot survive on mass scale, to live through to today, with only two of each species huddled onto an Ark for 40 days and nights. This is PROVEN even today, with the tragic number of species on the brink of extinction. What about Dinosaurs. You cant deny they excisted! Physical evidence is a pretty strong argument, dont ya think?. Religion is a propaganda story from a couple of thousand years ago. Ironically, man evolved to be self aware. We had to know why we were here. Some nutcase came up with a theory and it has stuck. NEVER EVER been proven. If you looked in my dictionary for the definitions of these topics, you will read:
Creationism: A theory of a greater supernatural force that created the world, and everything in it, based on a book.

Evolutionism: A theory based on physical evidence, proven through time and many hands. A theory that explains physically, and logically, the path of life to this day. Including Dinosaurs, DNA, natural selection and man.

No place in the bible does it cover the undeniable excistance of dinosaurs, outer universes, or the science of the periodic table.

In conclusion. How about for once, YOU PROVE ME WRONG, instead of asking me to PROVE YOU WRONG. I want physical evidence, not quotes from a book! (Some would call that plagerism)<<<
Have a nice day.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 7:09 PM on May 27, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

As an evolutionist, perhaps I could be of assistance. The reason Creationists need not prove the existence of their god is because their religion is not based on the scientific process. Evolution is a scientific theory, however, and it therefore requires evidence.

On the other hand, I would have to agree with the notion that ID'ists are hypocritical. Their argument relies almost exclusively on showing how Evolution couldn't have happened. They reason in black and white. "If it wasn't Event A, it must be Event B." To make matters worse, they submit that logic as science.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:02 PM on May 29, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No place in the bible does it cover the undeniable excistance of dinosaurs, outer universes, or the science of the periodic table.


1)  Maybe I'm behind the times in my science classes, but what other "universes" are we currently aware of?

2)  There are many things scientific ideas that are not covered in the bible.  There are many scientific ideas that are not covered in any one particular science book.  I'm not sure what your point is with that one.

3)  There are multiple references in the bible that people make assumptions on and apply their own "animals" to.  Leviathan, Behemoth, Nephilim.  None of these terms have been adequately translated.  For all we know, the nephilim were the dinosaurs.  I sincerely wonder why you think that the people who existed when the bible was written would use the term dinosaur.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 6:01 PM on May 29, 2006 | IP
GETREAL

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1)  Maybe I'm behind the times in my science classes, but what other "universes" are we currently aware of? (EMyers)

  The UNIVERSE is broken up into sectors. Some say it has six areas. This can be read about here: http://www.urantia.org/papers/paper12.html

In my statement, I refer to outer Universes. I am refering to the segments within the overall LARGE Universe. My point being, As far as I have read in the bible, no refence is made to any other planets, let alone other galaxies or "Outer Universes". Pretty big blank to leave in a book of history.

2)  There are many things scientific ideas that are not covered in the bible.  There are many scientific ideas that are not covered in any one particular science book.  I'm not sure what your point is with that one. (EMyers)

Here, I am refering to what we know as fact in science, that is not refered to in a book of history. I used the example of the periodic table of elements. You must have done science in school, so you should understand what I am talking about. Does the bible show anything in relation to it? It is an example, because I believe it to be the building blocks of the earth.

3)  There are multiple references in the bible that people make assumptions on and apply their own "animals" to.  Leviathan, Behemoth, Nephilim.  None of these terms have been adequately translated.  For all we know, the nephilim were the dinosaurs.  I sincerely wonder why you think that the people who existed when the bible was written would use the term dinosaur. (EMyers)

From what I have read of your examples, they sound like mythical creatures. I believe they have as much merrit as the 'David and Goliath' story. You have failed to really answer my question, however. Science has proven that large, and small herbivore and carnivore animals roamed the earth millions of years before man. This means that these animals were here before the writing of the bible 'story'. You may try to dis-credit this statement, however, I do have a LOT of evidence in my favour, and you do not.

The question still remains. Where is the REAL proof of a creator, proof that is far more convincing than one that science can provide for evolution.

The evidence that you provide, must be able to turn a great majority of ToE's and undeciders in your favour.

We have provided evidence. It is now your chance to turn it around....If you can.


 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 03:16 AM on May 30, 2006 | IP
GETREAL

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just a side point: If the book of Genesis is to be taken literally, then we are all a result of incest. I say that the story of Adam and Eve, if you believe it, actually proves evolution within the story itself. Let me explain: How do you get such a diverse community of people on this earth from one pair of white people. (I read that Adam and Eve were white). That aside, even if they were both black, or both asian, the point still stands. We look at Anglo-Saxan man. He is a very different man to someone from Africa. Colour in skin can only change through changes in genes over a few generations. Physical appearance is the same. Look at the eyes of an Englishman, then compare to someone from Thailand. IF we all came from Adam and Eve, then we should all be the same if evolution was not real.
Food for thought.

Just to re-visit my original post, the question of how only two animals of each species put on an ark can survive without genetic diversity? We KNOW for fact today, that a species cannot survive without diversity. If you dont believe me, look it up.
Till next time...
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 03:48 AM on May 30, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The UNIVERSE is broken up into sectors. Some say it has six areas. This can be read about here: http://www.urantia.org/papers/paper12.html

In my statement, I refer to outer Universes. I am refering to the segments within the overall LARGE Universe. My point being, As far as I have read in the bible, no refence is made to any other planets, let alone other galaxies or "Outer Universes". Pretty big blank to leave in a book of history.


After a cursory glance through all of my history books, I can't find a single mention of "outer universes".  It must be a government cover up.  No history book is covering this subject.  I can't believe it.

Here, I am refering to what we know as fact in science, that is not refered to in a book of history. I used the example of the periodic table of elements. You must have done science in school, so you should understand what I am talking about. Does the bible show anything in relation to it? It is an example, because I believe it to be the building blocks of the earth.


Odd, no mention of the periodic table is made in my Civil War history book either.  I think aliens are behind this!  Gadzooks!  There is no mention of thermodynamics in there either!

From what I have read of your examples, they sound like mythical creatures. I believe they have as much merrit as the 'David and Goliath' story.

Of course they do.  What does a dinosaur sound like to you?  If you'd only been to the zoo and never been through a science class and someone was trying to explain to you a pterodactyl or triceratops, it'd sound like some mythical creature to you as well.  Besides, if you actually read the biblical references to these creatures, very little information is give about them in the first place.  So, I'm not sure what mythical properties you are attributing to them other than the fact that you haven't seen a picture of one.

Just a side point: If the book of Genesis is to be taken literally, then we are all a result of incest. I say that the story of Adam and Eve, if you believe it, actually proves evolution within the story itself. Let me explain: How do you get such a diverse community of people on this earth from one pair of white people. (I read that Adam and Eve were white). That aside, even if they were both black, or both asian, the point still stands. We look at Anglo-Saxan man. He is a very different man to someone from Africa. Colour in skin can only change through changes in genes over a few generations. Physical appearance is the same. Look at the eyes of an Englishman, then compare to someone from Thailand. IF we all came from Adam and Eve, then we should all be the same if evolution was not real.
Food for thought.

Just to re-visit my original post, the question of how only two animals of each species put on an ark can survive without genetic diversity? We KNOW for fact today, that a species cannot survive without diversity. If you dont believe me, look it up.
Till next time...


First, Adam and Ever weren't brother and sister, whatever.  Second, before the fall there is no evidence of mutation, therefore there would be no harm resulting from interfamily relationships (and, in fact, incest is not "outlawed" until much later in biblical history).  Third, if evolution is true on a 4.5 billion year scale, then separate human groups should have diversified more than they have.  Fourth, as you stated, the changes that have occurred can happen over the course of a "few generations", which means that we don't need a 4.5 billion year universe to quantify the sparse differences among human populations.  Fifth, the bible allows for at least two possibilities to describe the differences amongst "race" (and what is race, but an arbitrary human segragation of population.  After all, hispanics are now considered a race when at one time they were actually two (europeans + native central americans = hispanics).  Who decides what is a "pure" race and what is a "mixed" race?  The first instance is, of course, the separation of the human population at the Tower of Babel.  The second instance is the fall itself.  We know that things began to devolve after the fall and that mutations began that would hinder the longevity of man.  Scientists ascribe mutations as the reason behind the differences in race.  Creationists do not disagree.  This is a moot point.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 3:21 PM on May 30, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Third, if evolution is true on a 4.5 billion year scale, then separate human groups should have diversified more than they have.


I agree with almost every point you’ve made so far, Ed, save that one.

First of all, there’s only been life on the planet for 2.5 of those 4.5 billion years. …And human beings occupy less than 500 thousand of those 2.5 billion years.

The second instance is the fall itself.  We know that things began to devolve after the fall and that mutations began that would hinder the longevity of man.


Define devolve. (It’s a real English word, so I’m assuming that wasn’t a typo.) Next, I’d have to question your certainty of these “facts”. How do we know that anything because to (d)evolve after the fall of the tower of Babel? What evidence of genetics do we have to prove that notion?

Who decides what is a "pure" race and what is a "mixed" race?


Genealogists, I would think. The “white European race” is not mixed because it, for lack of a better word, was not mixed. (ie: The Franks weren’t a mix of African and Asian descent.) Hispanic is a mixed race because it was fused of Spanish and Central/South America descent.



-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 3:59 PM on May 30, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

devolve - To degenerate or deteriorate gradually (i.e. mutations started to occur that did not exist before "the fall")...  Also, I understand your confusion on the fall, because I didn't explain it clearly.  I was not refering to the fall of the tower of Babel as the starting point for "devolving", but to "the fall" of man.  The tower of Babel is when the languages were mixed and the people were scattered (some people believe this is when the race differences were also introduced).  My personal opinion is that mutations (after getting kicked out of Eden) are what caused the differences in races (making no race any better than any other (before I'm misunderstood)).  My point with races is that, what many consider "white", is a mix in the first place (think Anglo-Saxon, etc).  I, personally, do not see any "pure race" myself.  Although I'm sure there will be some argument there.



-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 7:03 PM on May 30, 2006 | IP
GETREAL

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

After a cursory glance through all of my history books, I can't find a single mention of "outer universes".  It must be a government cover up.  No history book is covering this subject.  I can't believe it.(EMyers)

Here, you are just trying to dodge the point with sillyness. You know for a fact that the history book I am refering to is supposed to be the path of life to this day. You mention a civil war history book, that is just a wasted post. As you should know, my point refers to the bibles account of history. Not the history of the civil war. I would be stupid to look in a civil war history book to find the answer to the universe. The 'bible' claims it has the answers. A civil war history book covers just that...the civil war.

Of course they do.  What does a dinosaur sound like to you?  If you'd only been to the zoo and never been through a science class and someone was trying to explain to you a pterodactyl or triceratops, it'd sound like some mythical creature to you as well.  Besides, if you actually read the biblical references to these creatures, very little information is give about them in the first place.  So, I'm not sure what mythical properties you are attributing to them other than the fact that you haven't seen a picture of one. (EMyres)

We have evidence of MANY various species on DINOSAURS that roamed the EARTH MILLIONS OF YEARS BEFORE MAN! I feel like I am repeating myself... You mention a few examples of mythical creatures. No evidence that they were here at the same time as man.
I know that they excisted millions of years ago, because of the overwhelming evidence<<<
Something that I have been asking of you for a couple of posts now, but conveniently gets overlooked<<



Just to re-visit my original post, the question of how only two animals of each species put on an ark can survive without genetic diversity? We KNOW for fact today, that a species cannot survive without diversity. If you dont believe me, look it up.
Till next time...(GETREAL)

First, Adam and Ever weren't brother and sister, whatever.  Second, before the fall there is no evidence of mutation, therefore there would be no harm resulting from interfamily relationships (and, in fact, incest is not "outlawed" until much later in biblical history).  Third, if evolution is true on a 4.5 billion year scale, then separate human groups should have diversified more than they have.  Fourth, as you stated, the changes that have occurred can happen over the course of a "few generations", which means that we don't need a 4.5 billion year universe to quantify the sparse differences among human populations.  Fifth, the bible allows for at least two possibilities to describe the differences amongst "race" (and what is race, but an arbitrary human segragation of population.  After all, hispanics are now considered a race when at one time they were actually two (europeans + native central americans = hispanics).  Who decides what is a "pure" race and what is a "mixed" race?  The first instance is, of course, the separation of the human population at the Tower of Babel.  The second instance is the fall itself.  We know that things began to devolve after the fall and that mutations began that would hinder the longevity of man.  Scientists ascribe mutations as the reason behind the differences in race.  Creationists do not disagree.  This is a moot point.(EMyres)



Again, the point not covered by you. Two species??? AN ARK??? PLEASE EXPLAIN!
If Adam and Eve were not brother and sister, which I never claimed...That still is incest somewhere. Somebody had to have sex with either a sibling or parent or child to multiply! Maybe you need to re-visit the birds and the bees001 class?

Your statement here is the most RACIST comment I have ever read. I take offence to it...and I am white.

The question still remains. Where is the REAL proof of a creator, proof that is far more convincing than one that science can provide for evolution.

The evidence that you provide, must be able to turn a great majority of ToE's and undeciders in your favour.

We have provided evidence. It is now your chance to turn it around....If you can. (GETREAL)

Remember this?


 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 02:47 AM on May 31, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If Adam and Eve were not brother and sister, which I never claimed...That still is incest somewhere. Somebody had to have sex with either a sibling or parent or child to multiply! Maybe you need to re-visit the birds and the bees001 class?


I’m afraid you’re coming off as the misinformed one this time around. Incest is only harmful because two family members are likely to have the same recessive gene mutations and diseases. For human beings, in order for a recessive gene to show up in the phenotypic ratio, the recessive gene must pair with another recessive gene of the same kind during conception of the sperm and egg. Family members often have the same recessive genes, so if two family members have intercourse and conceive a child, that child will inherit recessive genetic traits, which are sometimes dangerous mutations.

In the case of Adam and Eve, however, humanity hasn’t been on Earth long enough to receive all those recessive genetic mutations. Even though Adam and Eve’s children would indeed be committing incest by having sex with one another, odds are, none of the recessive genes they have would be all that harmful. Their DNA has been around for 20 years, and that’s not long enough to come up with all the harmful diseases and mutations we see today.

I’m sorry. I don’t believe in the Adam and Eve story at all, but Ed’s got you there.

Your statement here is the most RACIST comment I have ever read. I take offence to it...and I am white.


???? What part did you take offense to?




-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 07:27 AM on May 31, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I agree.  I specifically said that no race is superior to any other race and that I didn't believe any race to be PURE (including my own (Heinz 57, mostly "white" )).  How anyone can be offended by that, I don't know.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 09:05 AM on May 31, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

While I'm kind of confused on the point of this post, and I'm not really rebutting anyone, I'd just like to point out a few things.
"Race" is a man made concept and really has no meaning in evolution.  We're all one species.
And superiority really has no meaning evolutionarily speaking.

I do have some problems with some of Emyers claims, though...

Second, before the fall there is no evidence of mutation,

Gentetics directly contradicts this since we can see when mutations occurred.  We can see primates acquired mutations long before modern man existed.

Third, if evolution is true on a 4.5 billion year scale, then separate human groups should have diversified more than they
have. [b]

Why?  How long have different groups of humans been mating?  What would the advantage have been to diversify?

[b]Fourth, as you stated, the changes that have occurred can happen over the course of a "few generations", which means that we don't need a 4.5 billion year universe to quantify the sparse differences among human populations.


But humans have only been around for roughly half a million years, not 4.5 billion.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:35 PM on May 31, 2006 | IP
GETREAL

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We know that things began to devolve after the fall and that mutations began that would hinder the longevity of man.  Scientists ascribe mutations as the reason behind the differences in race. (EMyres)

I took this statement in a way that anything other than pure white man/woman is considered a mutant.
That is what offended me.
Anyhoo, EMyres, you can carry on this conversation with yourself as far as I am conserned. You have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to answer my repeated questions. You only pick small portions of my posts and comment on those. This thread with you involved is a waste of time as far as I am concerned.
Have a nice day, and good luck with your creator.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 02:27 AM on June 1, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Anyhoo, EMyres, you can carry on this conversation with yourself as far as I am conserned. You have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to answer my repeated questions. You only pick small portions of my posts and comment on those. This thread with you involved is a waste of time as far as I am concerned.
Have a nice day, and good luck with your creator.


You're rude. I've seen no attempt of EMyers to evade any of your points.

I took this statement in a way that anything other than pure white man/woman is considered a mutant.
That is what offended me.


Where did EMyers ever hint that human beings with white skin were the only non-mutants? You can say virtually anything offends you, but it won't strengthen your argument.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 07:01 AM on June 1, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I took this statement in a way that anything other than pure white man/woman is considered a mutant.
That is what offended me.


Who said "white" was the first/pure race?  White is a mixed race in the first place (that's why there is a hyphen in Anglo-Saxon).  As Demon pointed out (and I'm pretty sure I said) race is a man made concept (I used the phrase "arbitrary human segragation of the population", but I think you see my point).    And you already answered your own question with regards to the ark.  Mutation.  I didn't see any point in repeating what you had already said.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 07:25 AM on June 1, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I've followed the above contentions and I discreetly back EMYERS on his stance on the genesis issue. It should be apparent though that a lot of what the Genesis story mentions should be accepted by faith. Faith, not Blind faith. It is obvious that Moses could not have inscribed all the the books in the Pentateuch(writing in death, [not to say it is impossible]); It should be noted that the Penteteuch (as are other books in the Bible) are several compositions by devout acquaintances  ascribed to a  revered author at the time. Just as a faithful wife would be trusted to write a credible biography about her deceased husband (provided the relationship was intimate - devout). The cited author assumes an authoritative position; the cited author must have contributed significantly (as In Moses case) to assume this role.

When you enter the super-natural realm the laws of the natural become subordinate. Taken as a matter of faith evolution is "acceptable". The evidence in creatinism dwells in the super-natural first, then the natural; contrary to evolution.

Maximum respect, CipherComplete.

(Edited by CipherComplete 6/2/2006 at 08:31 AM).

(Edited by CipherComplete 6/2/2006 at 09:22 AM).


-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 08:28 AM on June 2, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

When you enter the super-natural realm the laws of the natural become subordinate.


I agree entirely. Asking for proof of the supernatural with what is a naturalistically-rooted process does not make sense.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 09:16 AM on June 2, 2006 | IP
zerocool_12790

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

GETREAL,

Here is a short "proof" of a Creator of our universe. (of course nothing can be "proved" 100%, so by proof I mean compelling logical evidence).

Reasons to believe a Creator exists:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This cause was the God of the Bible. This is one of many reasons to believe a Creator exists. GETREAL it is your turn to comment and ask for clarification if necessary otherwise disprove the reasons I've given.

Can't wait.

best wishes,


zerocool_12790


-------
---There is a common belief rapidly spreading, which states that scientists are unquestionably ethical and objective. This is a gross myth that must be stopped before scientists claim it’s true.
 


Posts: 37 | Posted: 04:43 AM on June 8, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from zerocool_12790 at 11:43 PM on June 7, 2006 :
GETREAL,

Here is a short "proof" of a Creator of our universe. (of course nothing can be "proved" 100%, so by proof I mean compelling logical evidence).

Reasons to believe a Creator exists:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This cause was the God of the Bible. This is one of many reasons to believe a Creator exists. GETREAL it is your turn to comment and ask for clarification if necessary otherwise disprove the reasons I've given.

Can't wait.

best wishes,


zerocool_12790



how do you know the universe ever began?  what if it has always been here?  the universe would no longer require a creator then.  even the theory of the big bang does not rule out the possibility that there was a universe before the big bang.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 2:34 PM on June 8, 2006 | IP
zerocool_12790

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

RoyLennigan,

How are you RoyLennigan? You wrote:

""how do you know the universe ever began?  what if it has always been here?  the universe would no longer require a creator then.  even the theory of the big bang does not rule out the possibility that there was a universe before the big bang.""

I will keep my responses *short and sweet. (*as short as possible while remaining on topic)

-The universe could not be eternal (or as you put it, "always been here").
     This would logically mean that the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite.  This is self-contradictory because it would mean that we would never have reached this point. That's because we could always keep going back (since it's infinite) and it would be impossible to reach this present moment in time. I can't imagine there's anything you could say to this but if there is, be my guest.

-If another universe created ours it would be irrelevant to the discussion of beginnings.
     The statement of saying that another universe "could have" been before ours is very cunning. Unfortunately it doesn't remove the problem, it just places it further away. It's similar to asking where life on earth originated. The evidence thus far logically leads one to believe that life originating by chance is extremely remote. So instead of solving it, you could just say that aliens came and planted the first life here. This of course doesn't solve the problem but just shifts it to something else far far away so that we don't have to think about it.
     Even if I grant you that there was another universe before ours, perhaps 50 trillion before ours, we would still have the problem of where the first universe came from. You could say there was no starting point instead you keep getting universes the farther back you go. This of course brings about the problem of the contradictory notion of an infinite regression in time (see first response). The problem still remains.

-The universe had a beginning.
     Finally the most important question, "How do I know the universe began?" Simply put the current evidence from astrophysics indicates that the universe began to exist in a great explosion (or expansion) called the "Big Bang" around 15 billion years ago. Physical space and time were created in that event, as well as all the matter and energy in the universe. If you know of any evidence that contradicts this please reveal it.
     Continuing, as one goes back in time, one reaches a point at which the universe "shrinks" down to what physicists refer to as a singularity. In simple terms it's an extremely small point that is extremely dense and hot. Before this there is nothing. Currently the best conclusions that astrophysicists have come up with is that the Big Bang model requires that the universe began to exist and was created out of nothing. Naturally (unless you wish to resort to unreasonable logic) something can not arise out of nothing. Therefore the best conclusion based on all available evidence is that there must have been a cause that brought the universe into being. Once again if you know of any evidence that contradicts these findings please reveal it. If we agree that the universe had a cause this leads us back to my original conclusion that the God of the Bible is that cause.

Humbly awaiting your responses.

best wishes,


zerocool_12790


-------
---There is a common belief rapidly spreading, which states that scientists are unquestionably ethical and objective. This is a gross myth that must be stopped before scientists claim it’s true.
 


Posts: 37 | Posted: 03:35 AM on June 9, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from zerocool_12790 at 10:35 PM on June 8, 2006 :
RoyLennigan,

How are you RoyLennigan?

I'm doing quite well, how 'bout yourself?

Quote from zerocool_12790 at 10:35 PM on June 8, 2006 :
You wrote:

""how do you know the universe ever began?  what if it has always been here?  the universe would no longer require a creator then.  even the theory of the big bang does not rule out the possibility that there was a universe before the big bang.""

I will keep my responses *short and sweet. (*as short as possible while remaining on topic)

-The universe could not be eternal (or as you put it, "always been here").
     This would logically mean that the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite.  This is self-contradictory because it would mean that we would never have reached this point. That's because we could always keep going back (since it's infinite) and it would be impossible to reach this present moment in time. I can't imagine there's anything you could say to this but if there is, be my guest.

hmm... this seems more like an opinion to me, rather than pure logic.

my gripe with the idea of the universe having a beginning is simply this: if it did have a beginning then that means there was a period where there once was nothing.  this goes completely against both any religious idea and any scientific idea.  if there was a beginning, then there was also a beginning to any god that created the universe.  i am saying that there has always been existence of something, i don't care what you call it.  but the alternative is that the universe sprung from nothing without any cause.

if you believe that god created the universe, then god would be the something that has always been here, eternally.

Quote from zerocool_12790 at 10:35 PM on June 8, 2006 :
-If another universe created ours it would be irrelevant to the discussion of beginnings.
     The statement of saying that another universe "could have" been before ours is very cunning. Unfortunately it doesn't remove the problem, it just places it further away. It's similar to asking where life on earth originated. The evidence thus far logically leads one to believe that life originating by chance is extremely remote. So instead of solving it, you could just say that aliens came and planted the first life here. This of course doesn't solve the problem but just shifts it to something else far far away so that we don't have to think about it.

you still don't understand that evolution was not by chance?  anyways, i don't see a problem here at all, except your misunderstanding of what i am saying.  everything is the cause of something before it, just like our universe is the cause of something before it.  you could say that the universe had a beginning, if you made a distinction between what is here now and what was here before.  you could also say that a wave has a beginning if you made a distinction between the energy imparted and the vibrations reflected.  you could say that the 'universe' that was here before our universe is god.  would that reconcile things?  i don't even know if there was a universe here before ours, but i do know that there was something here to cause the big bang.

Quote from zerocool_12790 at 10:35 PM on June 8, 2006 :
Even if I grant you that there was another universe before ours, perhaps 50 trillion before ours, we would still have the problem of where the first universe came from. You could say there was no starting point instead you keep getting universes the farther back you go. This of course brings about the problem of the contradictory notion of an infinite regression in time (see first response). The problem still remains.

have we ever found an end to the complexity of our universe?  the very state of what is around us should clue you into the fact that nothing begets nothing and that means that nothing cannot exist.  which means that there was no beginning to the existence of anything.  everything present now is simply different forms of one thing--energy.  and that energy was present before the big bang that caused our universe.  i am not denying the possible existence of god, but i am saying that your logic is flawed.  even god was here before the universe, so that is something.  does god have a beginning?  the answer to that question is the same answer to whether anything has a beginning.

Quote from zerocool_12790 at 10:35 PM on June 8, 2006 :
-The universe had a beginning.
Finally the most important question, "How do I know the universe began?" Simply put the current evidence from astrophysics indicates that the universe began to exist in a great explosion (or expansion) called the "Big Bang" around 15 billion years ago. Physical space and time were created in that event, as well as all the matter and energy in the universe. If you know of any evidence that contradicts this please reveal it.
     Continuing, as one goes back in time, one reaches a point at which the universe "shrinks" down to what physicists refer to as a singularity. In simple terms it's an extremely small point that is extremely dense and hot. Before this there is nothing. Currently the best conclusions that astrophysicists have come up with is that the Big Bang model requires that the universe began to exist and was created out of nothing. Naturally (unless you wish to resort to unreasonable logic) something can not arise out of nothing. Therefore the best conclusion based on all available evidence is that there must have been a cause that brought the universe into being. Once again if you know of any evidence that contradicts these findings please reveal it. If we agree that the universe had a cause this leads us back to my original conclusion that the God of the Bible is that cause.

the big bang theory doesn't actually state that before it there was nothing.  in fact it agrees with my statements here that there must have been energy before the big bang to produce it.  in fact there are some scientists who say that our universe is like a wave and that it expands and contracts in simple harmonic motion.

your very statements here go against your previous 'logic' that the universe has a definite beginning.  something cannot come from nothing--so nothing has never existed.



(Edited by RoyLennigan 6/9/2006 at 4:40 PM).

(Edited by RoyLennigan 6/9/2006 at 4:41 PM).
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 4:38 PM on June 9, 2006 | IP
zerocool_12790

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

RoyLennigan,


First, I'm doing good, thanks for asking.

Now, you wrote concerning my statement on infinite regression:

""this seems more like an opinion to me, rather than pure logic.""

An infinite regression in time is in fact a logical contradiction whether you want to believe it's my opinion or not. But never-the-less it doesn't really matter since you believe that there was originally "something" to all that exists anyway.


""my gripe with the idea of the universe having a beginning is simply this: if it did have a beginning then that means there was a period where there once was nothing.  this goes completely against both any religious idea and any scientific idea.  if there was a beginning, then there was also a beginning to any god that created the universe.  i am saying that there has always been existence of something, i don't care what you call it.  but the alternative is that the universe sprung from nothing without any cause.

if you believe that god created the universe, then god would be the something that has always been here, eternally.""

Your second sentence comes to the unsupported conclusion that if the universe had a beginning that would mean that before it there was nothing. But that doesn't matter because you then go on to say that you believe that there was indeed something. That's great because that was my whole point.

""everything is the cause of something before it, just like our universe is the cause of something before it.""

You almost got it, just replace the word "cause" with the word "effect" and it will make sense.

""you could say that the universe had a beginning, if you made a distinction between what is here now and what was here before.""

I 100% say that and I do make that distinction.

""i don't even know if there was a universe here before ours, but i do know that there was something here to cause the big bang.""

Good, because that was my point.

""and that energy was present before the big bang that caused our universe.  i am not denying the possible existence of god...""

OK, so far so good...

""...but i am saying that your logic is flawed.""

I'd ask in what way but it really doesn't matter because...

""even god was here before the universe, so that is something.""

That's good to know because once again that was my point. That's what I was saying since the beginning of my post (lest anyone believe I've quoted out-of-context, I didn't quote this to make it appear that you believe in God, but that if God did exist that you agree He was here before the universe).

""the big bang theory doesn't actually state that before it there was nothing.""

Actually, the concensus among astrophysicists is that it does. But once again that doesn't matter because...

""your very statements here go against your previous 'logic' that the universe has a definite beginning.  something cannot come from nothing--so nothing has never existed.""

I'd ask for you to support your claim as to how my statements go against my previous logic, but it doesn't matter anyway because you keep saying the very thing that I've been claiming since my first post, namely, that the universe had a beginning, and that something must have caused it. Somewhere in the posts you seem to have gotten confused that I somehow stated that nothing can arise from something but I never stated that. I "did" say that according to a purely scientific view of the Big Bang model, before the singularity there was nothing. That's because before that we cannot test it and it therefore leaves the realm of science. But that's not what "I" believe, that's the viewpoint from a purely scientific stance. I believe, as well as you, that the universe did in fact begin to exist and therefore logically had a cause. Before I go any further let me just repeat this:

We both agree that the universe had a beginning and that this necessitates that it had a cause that was eternal (or in the very least whatever was the original "something" that caused everything to exist must be eternal). Now we both believe this, and that's great. That was my whole point. I'm glad we agree.

Now from the very nature of the case, as the cause of space and time, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe (or whatever has existed since the beginning). It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless, at least without the universe, because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.

Moreover I would argue, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect. For example, the cause of water's freezing is the temperature's being below 0 degrees Centigrade. If the temperature were below 0 degrees from eternity past, then any water that was around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to "begin" to freeze just a finite time ago. So if the cause is the timelessly present, then the effect should be timelessly present as well (this is why the first cause cannot be just "energy" or some other inanimate force or thing). The only way for the cause to be timeless and the effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any prior determining conditions. For example, a man sitting from eternity could freely will to stand up. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator.

Now irregardless of any objections you may have to my last comments the original point of my post was to give an example of proof that God exists to GETREAL. My "proof" was that whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore the universe had a cause. That "proof" is supported by the latest empirical data from astrophysics.

We both agree that the universe began to exist, and if so, then it must have had a cause that was eternal. This cause is none-other-than the God of the Bible for the reasons I've listed. That was the original point. If you'd like to discuss further about the nature of this cause etc, then we can, but I just didn't want anyone to forget the original point of my post, which we both agreed on already.

best wishes,


zerocool_12790



-------
---There is a common belief rapidly spreading, which states that scientists are unquestionably ethical and objective. This is a gross myth that must be stopped before scientists claim it’s true.
 


Posts: 37 | Posted: 01:26 AM on June 10, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from zerocool_12790 at 8:26 PM on June 9, 2006 :
RoyLennigan,

First, I'm doing good, thanks for asking.

Now, you wrote concerning my statement on infinite regression:

""this seems more like an opinion to me, rather than pure logic.""

An infinite regression in time is in fact a logical contradiction whether you want to believe it's my opinion or not. But never-the-less it doesn't really matter since you believe that there was originally "something" to all that exists anyway.

if you believe that there has always been something here to cause the existence of something else, in turn creating the universe as we know it--then you believe in an infinite regression.  it is not logically impossible, in fact it is logically the only true answer to our origins.  just think... how could we have come from nothing?  and since we did not come from nothing, the only other answer can be that we are the product of an eternally existing force.  and isn't that what god is described as anyways?

Quote from zerocool_12790 at 8:26 PM on June 9, 2006 :
""my gripe with the idea of the universe having a beginning is simply this: if it did have a beginning then that means there was a period where there once was nothing.  this goes completely against both any religious idea and any scientific idea.  if there was a beginning, then there was also a beginning to any god that created the universe.  i am saying that there has always been existence of something, i don't care what you call it.  but the alternative is that the universe sprung from nothing without any cause.

if you believe that god created the universe, then god would be the something that has always been here, eternally.""

Your second sentence comes to the unsupported conclusion that if the universe had a beginning that would mean that before it there was nothing. But that doesn't matter because you then go on to say that you believe that there was indeed something. That's great because that was my whole point.

im glad we're arguing about nothing (or perhaps the lack of nothing, heh).  i just tend to look for the big picture in all things and what it seems to me is that everything in our universe acts like a wave, that even the expansion of energy causing our universe is like a wave.  and waves expand to a max displacement before bouncing back like a spring towards and past the equilibrium (the point at which all matter and energy is compressed into the most dense point, like right before the big bang).  this dense point is a timeless state, it has no duration, before it expands the opposite way of our universe, repeating itself.  anyways, thats why i don't really see the big bang as a start to our universe, just another wavelength.

Quote from zerocool_12790 at 8:26 PM on June 9, 2006 :
""everything is the cause of something before it, just like our universe is the cause of something before it.""

You almost got it, just replace the word "cause" with the word "effect" and it will make sense.

lol, sorry that's what i meant.  "everything is the effect of something before it, just like our universe is the effect of something before it."

Quote from zerocool_12790 at 8:26 PM on June 9, 2006 :
""you could say that the universe had a beginning, if you made a distinction between what is here now and what was here before.""

I 100% say that and I do make that distinction.

alright, i understand that, even though its only a subjective opinion, its still true by definition.

Quote from zerocool_12790 at 8:26 PM on June 9, 2006 :
""i don't even know if there was a universe here before ours, but i do know that there was something here to cause the big bang.""

Good, because that was my point.

""and that energy was present before the big bang that caused our universe.  i am not denying the possible existence of god...""

OK, so far so good...

""...but i am saying that your logic is flawed.""

I'd ask in what way but it really doesn't matter because...

your logic that infinite regression is contradictory to existence.  i don't believe that is right, because infinite regression is the only possible explanation for our existence.  we have a misconstrued idea of nothing based on the relative nature of our thought processes.  nothing exists only in a timeless state that has no duration (like that of the point just before the big bang on the equilibrium of the wave).  it is just a quantum bridge through which a process occurs.  it is an exactly inverse destructive wave interference.  nothing is the lack of anything--which means also that it cannot cause anything because there is nothing to interact.  nothing lacks change as well, so nothing can happen in nothing.  but i think you understand that.

Quote from zerocool_12790 at 8:26 PM on June 9, 2006 :
""the big bang theory doesn't actually state that before it there was nothing.""

Actually, the concensus among astrophysicists is that it does. But once again that doesn't matter because...

i'd like to see what scientists you've been reading from because they're wrong, or they've found proof that hundreds of years of science is wrong.  yes, there are scientists who don't know what they're talking about, even ones with doctorates.

Quote from zerocool_12790 at 8:26 PM on June 9, 2006 :
""your very statements here go against your previous 'logic' that the universe has a definite beginning.  something cannot come from nothing--so nothing has never existed.""

I'd ask for you to support your claim as to how my statements go against my previous logic, but it doesn't matter anyway because you keep saying the very thing that I've been claiming since my first post, namely, that the universe had a beginning, and that something must have caused it. Somewhere in the posts you seem to have gotten confused that I somehow stated that nothing can arise from something but I never stated that.

i think it was when you said that infinite regression is impossible.  the only alternative to infinite regression is that there was a point in time in which something came from nothing.  the existence of a god alone is still something--it is not nothing unless you define god as nothing, in which case god would not exist.  but i don't think you define god such, nor would i.

Quote from zerocool_12790 at 8:26 PM on June 9, 2006 :
I "did" say that according to a purely scientific view of the Big Bang model, before the singularity there was nothing. That's because before that we cannot test it and it therefore leaves the realm of science. But that's not what "I" believe, that's the viewpoint from a purely scientific stance. I believe, as well as you, that the universe did in fact begin to exist and therefore logically had a cause.

i agree, but let me just say this; the general scientific consensus, regardless of what you have read, is that there was energy existing before the big bang that caused it.  any other theory contradicts basic scientific laws.  in fact, there are some theories that our universe is like a wave and that there were other universes before ours, just as a wave repeats itself.

Quote from zerocool_12790 at 8:26 PM on June 9, 2006 :
Before I go any further let me just repeat this:

We both agree that the universe had a beginning and that this necessitates that it had a cause that was eternal (or in the very least whatever was the original "something" that caused everything to exist must be eternal). Now we both believe this, and that's great. That was my whole point. I'm glad we agree.

Now from the very nature of the case, as the cause of space and time, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe (or whatever has existed since the beginning).

this would necessarily entail that something unchanging causes change.  how does that happen?  its the same as saying nothing caused something, i don't see how it can occur.  we talk about how before the big bang there was only one dimension--well that dimension must have been time and no other.  time is the measurement of change.  change must occur for something to begin to exist.  so that means that whatever caused the universe was changing, and was not timeless.  there might be timeless states, but they have no duration and are not the cause of anything, they are only the effect of perfect cancellation.  but after that point of equilibrium, simple harmonic motion causes the action to keep going, so it never stays in a timeless state.

the very fact that we are here as we are (constantly changing) means that our universe infinitely regresses.  it means that there have always been unbalanced forces which cause change.  otherwise, everything would be constant and there would be no time.  time does not simply begin to be... it is a measurement of change.  change can only be caused by change.  an eternal timeless state cannot change, and so it therefore cannot bring about change.  a being that exists in a timeless state cannot change--cannot think--cannot do anything.  it is not because that being is unable to do anything in a timeless state, it is simply that by doing something, the timeless state ceases to be timeless.  and by ceasing to be timeless, the timeless state before it was only a moment of non-duration.

Quote from zerocool_12790 at 8:26 PM on June 9, 2006 :
It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless, at least without the universe, because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.

the word physical only describes a thing or force that affects our universe.  i would say that the cause of our universe is definately physical.  the things you might call immaterial are simply those forces which we have not yet discovered.  but the fact that they affect our universe still remains, so that it is a possibility that we might find them and in so doing, call them physical forces.  before a human ever saw an elephant, there was no name for elephant.  but that did not mean the elephant didn't exist, did it?

a timeless state, in itself, cannot cause anything.  a timeless state preceded by interacting energy can cause something.  this is why the cause of the universe can never be tracked down completely--why we are the product of infinite regress.  the timeless state you speak of is not the cause of our universe, it is the parallel effect of the cause of our universe.

in physics there is an interaction called interference.  when one wave travelling in one direction meets a wave travelling in the opposite direction, their amplitudes and wavelengths interact.  if the second wave has the same wavelength as the first, but exactly inverse--that is the crest of the first lines up with the trough of the second--then destructive interference causes both waves to be momentarily phased out.  that is, when they meet, they cancel each other out and there is nothing.  but after passing through each other, they resume with the same energy.

Quote from zerocool_12790 at 8:26 PM on June 9, 2006 :
Moreover I would argue, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect. For example, the cause of water's freezing is the temperature's being below 0 degrees Centigrade. If the temperature were below 0 degrees from eternity past, then any water that was around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to "begin" to freeze just a finite time ago. So if the cause is the timelessly present, then the effect should be timelessly present as well (this is why the first cause cannot be just "energy" or some other inanimate force or thing). The only way for the cause to be timeless and the effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any prior determining conditions. For example, a man sitting from eternity could freely will to stand up. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator.

i don't quite understand what you are saying in your refutation of infinite regress, but your justification for a creator and a timeless cause to our universe just doesn't seem to make sense.

first of all, you assume that infinite regress means that the universe has been exactly how it is now infinitely.  this is simply not true.  before the big bang there might have been no element Hydrogen or the element Oxygen and so there was no water to freeze.  infinite regress means that there has always been energy around, which makes sense because energy is the one constant that we truly know of.  all else is different forms and combinations of energy.

next, you attribute the cause of our universe to be a conscious creator who lives in a timeless state.  that in itself is a paradox.  a timeless state is not some alternate dimension.  it is a description of a state.  in a timeless state, a conscious being cannot exist.  a conscious being makes decisions in a changing state.  in a timeless state there is no change.  simply by thinking, the conscious creator would be in a changing state of time.  to create an effect in a timeless state, there must have been a state of time before the timeless state to cause the pre-set conditions in which action could be carried out past that timeless state.  timelessness is perfect equilibrium.  but the existence of change means that the equilibrium was not entirely perfect and that there was energy imparted that caused all existence to go past the equilibrium and keep travelling towards maximum displacement.

Quote from zerocool_12790 at 8:26 PM on June 9, 2006 :
Now irregardless of any objections you may have to my last comments the original point of my post was to give an example of proof that God exists to GETREAL. My "proof" was that whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore the universe had a cause. That "proof" is supported by the latest empirical data from astrophysics.

Our present universe began to exist.  but only when you subjectively distinguish it from what was here before a chosen point.  before it there was energy in motion to bring about a destructive interference, bringing that energy to the equilibrium momentarily, like a swing swinging back and forth.  its point of equilibrium is how it sits with no energy imparted on it, and so it reaches equilibrium between each maximum displacement (the highest you go on the swing forward and the highest you go backwards), but it does not stay there because it has energy.

but ultimately we agree on the basic point of this argument--that the universe had a cause.

Quote from zerocool_12790 at 8:26 PM on June 9, 2006 :
We both agree that the universe began to exist, and if so, then it must have had a cause that was eternal. This cause is none-other-than the God of the Bible for the reasons I've listed. That was the original point. If you'd like to discuss further about the nature of this cause etc, then we can, but I just didn't want anyone to forget the original point of my post, which we both agreed on already.

whether or not its the god of the bible is a subjective decision.  i can agree with you only because i know that the bible is made of words that are only defined by our subjective association to the words.  its different to everyone.

i agree that the cause is eternal, but i say that it must be eternally changing and only constant at momentary states of non-duration when energy interacts to reach an equilibrium.  otherwise there would be no force, not even god, that could cause change.  because, like i said before, it is not that god is unable to change in a changeless state (or do anything for that matter) but that by causing change, that changeless state ceases to be.  by even thinking, that changeless state ceases to be.  and for god to change something in a changeless state, he has to have a motive, or reason to.  desire would only be able to occur in a changing state.  his motivation to change the changeless state would then have to have come before the changeless state, otherwise he would not have it--he would be content with timelessness.

(Edited by RoyLennigan 6/12/2006 at 12:55 AM).

(Edited by RoyLennigan 6/12/2006 at 01:01 AM).

(Edited by RoyLennigan 6/12/2006 at 01:03 AM).
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 2:57 PM on June 11, 2006 | IP
zerocool_12790

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

RoyLennigan,

Hi again.

First off let me just say that I have enjoyed our discussion. My primary goal was to give GETREAL a simple proof that the God of the Bible exists. I used the logic that:

1. whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. The universe must have a cause.

I then show why that cause is most reasonably the God of the Bible. We might not agree as to what that cause is, but we both agree that the universe did indeed begin to exist and must necessarily have a cause. That is a great point to  make and the fact that we both agreed on that is very important. Before I continue I just wanted to state that that was my main point, to show that premises 1-3 were logically sound. I've done that. Anything after this point is going to become more difficult since we're entering the realm of philosophical science which gets murky. In any event I just wanted to state for the record that we have now both gone from my original point to something a little more indepth (namely, that the God of the Bible is the original cause of the universe). I would like to continue this discussion on this path if you'd like. But before I comment on anything you wrote I would like to deal with the idea of "infinite regression."

""first of all, you assume that infinite regress means that the universe has been exactly how it is now infinitely.  this is simply not true.  before the big bang there might have been no element Hydrogen or the element Oxygen and so there was no water to freeze.  infinite regress means that there has always been energy around, which makes sense because energy is the one constant that we truly know of.  all else is different forms and combinations of energy.""

I never stated that the infinite regression meant that the univeres has been exactly as it is now infinitely. If I gave that impression let me clear that up now. Here is what infinite regression really means:

Infinite regression is the idea that you can go backwards in time never reaching a beginning.

Does this make sense? Let's see.

Let’s mark off a random part of the recent past, say 2 seconds ago. Starting at 2 seconds ago and continuing forward in time, time would go on forever, it would be infinite.* So here it makes sense that if we begin at a starting point (2 seconds ago) and continue forward in time, time itself will continue to go on forever (be infinite).
*assuming that time continues as it does now, going forward forever.

Now let’s try the reverse of that. Starting from 2 seconds ago continue going backwards in time. How long will it go on for? Well we know that if there was an original starting point, it would go on until it reached that point, the beginning, no problems thus far. But what if there was no starting point, no beginning? Let’s find out. How long did it take starting 2 seconds ago and going backwards 3 hours? Well it would have taken 3 hours worth of time to reach that 2 second point right? But the beginning wasn’t 3 hours before the 2 second mark. In fact there was no beginning. So if time had no beginning but continued backwards forever, how much time would have passed to get from the infinite past, to our 2 seconds ago mark? Well, simple logic would indicate that an infinite amount of time would have needed to pass before the 2 seconds ago mark. But how can that be? In fact we know that we do not have an infinitely old past for the mere fact that we have reached this present moment in time! Don’t believe me? Try to reach this present moment believing that an infinite amount of time has passed. You will never be able to do it because you could always keep going backwards causing an impassable gulf between the present time and the infinite past. You could always keep going backwards realizing that there's always going to be an infinite amount of more moments that needs to pass before we reach the present time. For this very reason it is illogical that there could be an infinite regression in time, no beginning. There cannot be an infinite regression of causes.  It is logically impossible.  Why?  Because you can not cross an infinity.  

    In other words, in order for us to get to the present state there would have had to be an infinite number of moments (or events) in the past.  But, this cannot be because in order to get to the present, you would have to transverse an infinity of moments and that is impossible since you cannot transverse an infinity, if you could cross (transverse) an infinity of time, then it isn't infinite.  Therefore, the idea of an infinite regression of time is impossible and proven false.

That is why the only logical conclusion is that there was an original source to all things that never came into existence and was timeless. That source is the God of the Bible.

Well I await your response to this before I go any further.

best wishes,


zerocool_12790


-------
---There is a common belief rapidly spreading, which states that scientists are unquestionably ethical and objective. This is a gross myth that must be stopped before scientists claim it’s true.
 


Posts: 37 | Posted: 03:24 AM on June 14, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That is why the only logical conclusion is that there was an original source to all things that never came into existence and was timeless. That source is the God of the
Bible.


Why the God of the Bible?  Energy exists, it is entirely more plausible that energy is eternal, that energy predates the universe.  Creationists invariably can't explain why the first cause must be an omnipotent, omniscient entity, let alone provide evidence to support this conclusion.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 06:54 AM on June 14, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

Why the God of the Bible? Why not the God of the Koran, or perhaps the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Once again, Zero, the problem in your argument arises from an enormous gap in logic. How do you get from "There was never nothing; something eternal exists" to "Clearly the only possible explanation for an eternal universe is God, who put himself in the body of Jesus Christ and died for our sins"?

An eternal universe hardly means the world was created in six days, that there was a global flood, that many human languages exist because of the fall of the Tower of Babel, or that life is intelligently designed.

An eternal universe leaves the possibility that all those events occured, but it does entail their certainty. Evolution, of course, is still possible as well.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 6/14/2006 at 09:43 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 09:41 AM on June 14, 2006 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from zerocool_12790 at 02:24 AM on June 14, 2006 :
My primary goal was to give GETREAL a simple proof that the God of the Bible exists. I used the logic that:

1. whatever begins to exist has a cause.


It seems to me that to validate your first premise, you must first disprove Quantum Mechanics.  What is your stand on vacuum flucutations (sometimes known as virtual particles)?

The Casimir effect provides clear experimental evidence of their existance.

Vacuum - Quantum Mechanics definition

Casimir effect


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:38 AM on June 15, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm not a scientist, but looking at both articles you cited it seems that they are saying there is a cause.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:57 AM on June 15, 2006 | IP
birchie1983

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

This debate is essentially about evolution vs the Bibles account of how life originated, i.e. creationism.

Firstly I don't require any proof whether or not evolution is true or not, I know it is false purely because I have faith in Jesus Christ. A secondary reason is: look around you, this world could not have been a result of a random chance. The whole thing about something coming from nothing just doesn't jibe. I mean you can't just say that non living matter such as nitrogen and oxygen and water etc just combined to form a living creature. That’s just absurd. I think IF evolution did occur, then there would be some evidence of this occurring somewhere.

Before I go on, I want to clear up a common misconception. There is a big difference between evolution and adaptation. Look it up in the dictionary and you have ur proof right there. Essentially evolution is the creation of a NEW species. With in the dog species you get different types of dogs, not a new species. same with cats and horse etc. If you want to argue this point, argue it with your scientists, not with me, plain and simple, this is a fact, that adaptation doesn't and has never ever seen (in recorded history) to have resulted in a NEW species. Those of you who cannot move/get over this fact, I feel sorry for you and will not entertain a response trying to argue this point, simply because it is pointless and a waste of time.

As I was saying before, if I were to entertain the idea of evolution, and assuming that men came from monkeys, would you expect to see some monkeys turning human? Before you try arguing this point saying it takes Millions of years, well I would say at this very point in time to however far back in time you wish to go, you can find your million year(s) time frame, so to say it takes that long and we will never see this evolution take place is a cop out. And to blow the theory of the world being a million or so year old, take the rate of erosion we have here on earth, and factors such as space dust, and you will see that by doing some math, the earth should have eroded a away a few times. Maybe this is an absurd example, but it has a ring of truth to it. One scientist tested a LIVING mollusk via carbon dating and found it to be a few million years old. Plain and simple, the evolution theory is based on non observable situations, assumptions, and unproven methods. With that said there should be enough doubt in your minds as to whether evolution is indeed the way it happened. So if you think you are "open minded" then you would concede that either creationism is a possible theory.

I believe that men do not want to admit to creationism, because that means they would be responsible (morally and otherwise) to a creator, and thus their lustful and sinful lifestyles would go out the window, and therefore it would be easier and more socially acceptable for them to believe in an alternate theory, i.e. evolution.

Now I pose a question to all of you evolutionists: if this world came about as mere chance, then why do we see complex structures, and natural hierarchical order? Most of nature is organized, a logical assumption would be that if this world came into existence because of random variables will it so, I would expect to have seen nature in absolute chaos.

Another thing I would like to point out is: look at your own body. Look at every part of it, and see if a single part of it is "useless". And for those smart alecs who would point out tonsils and the appendix visit these sites: http://www.pedisurg.com/PtEducENT/tonsils.htm and http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/appendix.asp?vPrint=1. (and please don't come and tell me that is a Christian site therefore not credible, because u non Christians take information from a non Christian website, so that argument is null and void - take the facts as they stand, Christian or non Christian. Surely you are mature enough to respect that)

Do you think that the earth so happens to be on a 33.33 Degree tilt by mistake? Not mention a degree closer or a degree further would make us all freeze or fry.

Do think that a complex human body could come out of chance?

How do explain the unexplainable? By a half cocked theory posted by Darwin a hundred years ago? He hardly had any knowledge, compared with what we have today yet people still subscribe to it. People believed the world was flat back then (even earlier than Darwin I believe). They had people executed for petes sake for a theory that was not proven till Christopher Columbus came along.

So in conclusion I know that adaptation exists, who could deny it? Just not evolution. The evidence is there. I am so tired of people calling me close minded because of what I believe. I say you people are close minded not to even entertain the power of God. One day soon, Jesus will come again and the world will know for sure. For some people the truth will come a lot sooner. I refer to people going to heaven or hell. So before you get all mad about what I am saying, research it for yourself look at www.answersingenesis.org. Look into it yourself before come here half cocked and looking for a fight. This should be a quest for truth not a quest to see who’s right so we can all sleep better at night. If you genuinely here for truth, then do yourself a favor and do some research and do not disregard Christian sites, if you do, you are truly closed minded.

 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 05:01 AM on June 18, 2006 | IP
birchie1983

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let me just add this: it seems when evolutionists get backed into a corner, they try to poke holes by pulling you up on technicalities such as spelling or will try a circular argument.

Another such tactic I have observed is they will not try discredit directly what you say, instead find a counter argument and try discredit what they say by showing everyone else they can't answer a particular argument because they have little or no knowledge in that area, i.e. someone earlier pull something right out of left field about quantum physics.

So please as I have said before, this should be a quest for truth, not a quest to see who can use the most complicated language or who has the biggest brain.

Science isn't the be all and end all. It cannot be the answer to everything. How can you account for all the unexplainable things out there. Once again people choose to believe in aliens to explain it away. Its all about denial. The answer is right in front of people. Stop trying to intellectualise it.
 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 10:19 AM on June 18, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
0

Rate this post:

Oh no... another bunch of PRATT recitations swiped off a website like AIG.

Firstly I don't require any proof whether or not evolution is true or not, I know it is false purely because I have faith in Jesus Christ.


Sorry Birchie, but that's no way to debate. After all, millions of muslims have faith that you are also wrong.

A secondary reason is: look around you, this world could not have been a result of a random chance. The whole thing about something coming from nothing just doesn't jibe.


Your failure to read the above posts in this thread is not appreciated. It has already been established that something cannot come from nothing. The Theory of Evolution does not state that something came from nothing, and neither does any other scientific theory. (This is all, of course, leaving out the fact that the ToE doesn't have anything to do with how life, or the universe, came to be.)

I mean you can't just say that non living matter such as nitrogen and oxygen and water etc just combined to form a living creature. That’s just absurd.


Citing from a recent blog entry over the debate, "You may be an Intelligent Design supporter if...":

1. You believe the question “Duh, isn’t it obvious?” carries as much scientific weight as any amount of objective, quantifiable, verifiable scientific evidence.

Before I go on, I want to clear up a common misconception. There is a big difference between evolution and adaptation. Look it up in the dictionary and you have ur proof right there. Essentially evolution is the creation of a NEW species. With in the dog species you get different types of dogs, not a new species. same with cats and horse etc. If you want to argue this point, argue it with your scientists, not with me, plain and simple, this is a fact, that adaptation doesn't and has never ever seen (in recorded history) to have resulted in a NEW species. Those of you who cannot move/get over this fact, I feel sorry for you and will not entertain a response trying to argue this point, simply because it is pointless and a waste of time.


Not only are you wrong, but your refusal to continue with a point--which many consider at the very least controversial--is hardly the proper way to argue something. I don't, however, wish to lecture you on how to make a point; how rude and silly you appear to others is purely your own choice.

As I was saying before, if I were to entertain the idea of evolution, and assuming that men came from monkeys, would you expect to see some monkeys turning human? Before you try arguing this point saying it takes Millions of years, well I would say at this very point in time to however far back in time you wish to go, you can find your million year(s) time frame, so to say it takes that long and we will never see this evolution take place is a cop out.


What are you talking about? Ignoring the fact that, according to the ToE, man did not evolve from monkeys, are we in agreement that such a change would take millions of years, or not?

And to blow the theory of the world being a million or so year old, take the rate of erosion we have here on earth, and factors such as space dust, and you will see that by doing some math, the earth should have eroded a away a few times.


First of all, what math? I assume that since you're sure of the facts here, you can easily back it up with one, two, or more credible source(s).

Second, I'd have to question your own scientific background. Have you ever taken a junior high Earth-Science course, or forbid, read a picture book about volcanos? Of course the oceans erode the earth! Volcanos are continually spitting up more rock for newer land. (ie: Iceland, Hawaii...)

Maybe this is an absurd example, but it has a ring of truth to it. One scientist tested a LIVING mollusk via carbon dating and found it to be a few million years old. Plain and simple, the evolution theory is based on non observable situations, assumptions, and unproven methods. With that said there should be enough doubt in your minds as to whether evolution is indeed the way it happened. So if you think you are "open minded" then you would concede that either creationism is a possible theory.


Creationism is certainly possible, Birchie. It's just not a theory, or for that matter scientific at all. So far, you've shown (yet again without a source, no less...) that a specific carbon-dating technique is potentially unreliable when used on a living organism.

Let's get deeper, Birchie, because it would help to know:

1.) if it was Carbon-12, Carbon-14, several of the other carbon isotopes;

2.) if the scientist who ran the test tried some different methods, like Uranium-isotope dating (you know, one of the dating techniques that goes unmentioned on creationist propoganda websites)

3.) which source this came from.

I believe that men do not want to admit to creationism, because that means they would be responsible (morally and otherwise) to a creator, and thus their lustful and sinful lifestyles would go out the window, and therefore it would be easier and more socially acceptable for them to believe in an alternate theory, i.e. evolution.


This logic is completely backward. It's much easier to blindly accept a religion than it is to question and validate everything. Life would be much better if all I had to do was obey God and go to Heaven to enjoy an eternity of incomprehensible pleasures. An absence of that safety net is much more difficult to grasp, in my opinion.

That is not to say, of course, that evolution is atheistic, as I see you've already falsely labeled the scientific theory. There are countless more thousands of biology scientists who accept both religion and evolution than there are biology scientists who only accept religion.

Now I pose a question to all of you evolutionists: if this world came about as mere chance, then why do we see complex structures, and natural hierarchical order? Most of nature is organized, a logical assumption would be that if this world came into existence because of random variables will it so, I would expect to have seen nature in absolute chaos.


You only expect such because you chose to expect it. "Chaos" is by no means a scientifically-definable term--nor is it measurable. There's nothing known to man that would make "order" impossible in a universe without God.

Another thing I would like to point out is: look at your own body. Look at every part of it, and see if a single part of it is "useless". And for those smart alecs who would point out tonsils and the appendix visit these sites: http://www.pedisurg.com/PtEducENT/tonsils.htm and http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/appendix.asp?vPrint=1. (and please don't come and tell me that is a Christian site therefore not credible, because u non Christians take information from a non Christian website, so that argument is null and void - take the facts as they stand, Christian or non Christian. Surely you are mature enough to respect that)


I recall a quite long argument over this matter in one of the other threads. I don't have the time to look back on it now, so unless someone else would care to bite, I'll pass this one up for later. Please don't take this as a disguised retreat, Birchie. I respect the fact that you supplied sources, regardless of their questionable bias, and I do hope to get to this if no one else does.

Do you think that the earth so happens to be on a 33.33 Degree tilt by mistake? Not mention a degree closer or a degree further would make us all freeze or fry.


Birchie, that's precisely the reason there isn't any suspicion of life on the planets Venus and Mercury. Their environments are obviously too inhospitable to support life as we know it. Attributing the placement of Earth as a function of the existence of life is completeley opposite of common sense. Life is here as a function of the placement of Earth, not the other way around. If Earth did suffer from any of the conditions you described, life would never has existed here in the first place.

Do think that a complex human body could come out of chance?


"Complex" is not a scientific term. I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by it. Could you explain the exact line between which something goes from "simple" to "complex"?

How do explain the unexplainable?


You can't explain the unexplainable at all. Not through science nor religion. To do so is to speculate, and absolutely nothing more. I don't know why you brought this up, though, because evolution is certainly explainable. It's already been subjected to over 150 years of explanation.

By a half cocked theory posted by Darwin a hundred years ago?


Please explain the difference between a scientific theory that is completely cocked, one which is half cocked, and one that is not cocked at all. I can't say I know what you mean.

He hardly had any knowledge, compared with what we have today yet people still subscribe to it.


Well, obviously. Much more evidence in support of Darwin's theory has surfaced. Evolution has so far stood the test of time quite nicely. Why wouldn't people subscribe to it? Because of their contrary religious convictions? (Heheh... not funny.)

People believed the world was flat back then (even earlier than Darwin I believe). They had people executed for petes sake...


Just for the irony, as this severly backfires your point... Those folks who had people executed over the idea that the earth was not flat did so because it opposed their religious doctrine.

for a theory that was not proven till Christopher Columbus came along.


You don't prove scientific theories. Their merit stands on whether or not they are disproved.

So in conclusion I know that adaptation exists, who could deny it? Just not evolution. The evidence is there. I am so tired of people calling me close minded because of what I believe. I say you people are close minded not to even entertain the power of God. One day soon, Jesus will come again and the world will know for sure.


Until then, I'll continue my sinful lifestyle of questioning that which should logically be questioned.

For some people the truth will come a lot sooner. I refer to people going to heaven or hell. So before you get all mad about what I am saying, research it for yourself look at www.answersingenesis.org. Look into it yourself before come here half cocked and looking for a fight.


Sadly, most of us here are probably more familiar with AIG.org than you are.

This should be a quest for truth not a quest to see who’s right so we can all sleep better at night. If you genuinely here for truth, then do yourself a favor and do some research and do not disregard Christian sites, if you do, you are truly closed minded.


I'm sorry, Birchie, but you need to explain why non-scientific sources are considered credible in a scientific debate. If this debate was centered around an issue of Christianity and not Biology, it would make much more sense to cite Christian sources rather than those about biology, just as it makes more sense to cite biology-related sources in a debate about biology rather than Christian sources. ... (No puns intended...)

Let me just add this: it seems when evolutionists get backed into a corner, they try to poke holes by pulling you up on technicalities such as spelling or will try a circular argument.


I'll be upfront: you definetely are closeminded and inexperienced if you think such tactics only apply to evolutionists. Irrelevant nitpicking technicalities like grammar show up on both sides of every debate from Abortion to Zoology. Do not pretend it's always your opponent.

Another such tactic I have observed is they will not try discredit directly what you say, instead find a counter argument and try discredit what they say by showing everyone else they can't answer a particular argument because they have little or no knowledge in that area, i.e. someone earlier pull something right out of left field about quantum physics.


... No idea what you're going on about here.

So please as I have said before, this should be a quest for truth, not a quest to see who can use the most complicated language or who has the biggest brain.


Inside joke: tell that to Cipher.

Science isn't the be all and end all.


No one, including you and me, can possibly know that for certain. Science very well could be, and it could not.

It cannot be the answer to everything.


You're sounding much more like a widow in denial of the death of her husband ("It can't be!") than you are a rhetoritician. Stick to evidence, please.

How can you account for all the unexplainable things out there. Once again people choose to believe in aliens to explain it away. Its all about denial.


You've just described the fundamentals of Intelligent Design. Insert "God" in place of "aliens".

The answer is right in front of people. Stop trying to intellectualise it.


That's an incredibly dangerous philosophy. To stop using one's head, shut up, and follow along with blind obedience and without question is the line of thought German citizens had during the rise of Hitler.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 6/18/2006 at 3:35 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 3:33 PM on June 18, 2006 | IP
birchie1983

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is what I don't understand. This is as much a religious debate than it is scientific. If you were so objective you would have studied the Bible and what it says and reach your "scientific" conclusion. So how can you speak on such authority if you have not read the Bible (my apologies if you have).

Therefore I believe that matters in faith have an equal weight in this discussion as scientific. Otherwise you we may as well be comparing apples to oranges. You cannot argue evolution on a scientific basis with out acknowledging the BIble.

How can you even begin to tell me I am close minded when you are as equally close minded. I have been taught evolution, and just because I don't seem to have the same grasp of science as you seem to (I have my field of specialty - Accountancy - just not science). I consider myself as level headed as the next guy.

So whether you like it or not this debate cannot only be a scientific one. If you want the sources of my previous information I can look them up for you. I researched that 5 years ago, but if it would make you sleep better at night I will call up the sources, mind you they were books as well as internet sites so getting your hands on them may be a task and a half.

You also mentioned my "bias" websites. Wake up buddy - everything has bias. People who write against creation also have bias. Please. Just spare me the semantics.
 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 10:50 PM on June 18, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is what I don't understand. This is as much a religious debate than it is scientific.

Of course it's not, evolution describes what we see in nature, it explains the these facts better than any other explaination.  How is it religious?  Is physics religious? Is chemistry?
You don't understand that ALL science is agnostic, it neither confirms or denies the existance of God.  

If you were so objective you would have studied the Bible and what it says and reach your "scientific" conclusion.

You can't study the Bible and reach a scientific conclusion because the Bible is not a book of science, it's a book of primitive myths that have already been falsified.

Therefore I believe that matters in faith have an equal weight in this discussion as scientific.

Why?  Nothing in science is taken on faith, why should we make an acception for you?

You cannot argue evolution on a scientific basis with out acknowledging the BIble.

Again, why?  The Bible has nothing to do with science, and since evolution is supported by all evidence found to date and accepted by virtually all biologists, we most certainly CAN argue evolution without the Bible...

So whether you like it or not this debate cannot only be a scientific one.

Since the theory of evolution is ONLY a scientific theory, nothing more, nothing less, this debate can only be a scientific one.

You also mentioned my "bias" websites. Wake up buddy - everything has bias. People who write against creation also have bias. Please. Just spare me the semantics.

Yes, everyone is bias, but unlike your creationist sources, the scientific method strives to be unbias, it is the most objective method of investigation we have.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:57 PM on June 18, 2006 | IP
birchie1983

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You are making no sense at all. Like non whatsoever. THINK before you reply to this. You CANNOT have an argument involving evolution vs. creationism with out involving talking about faith because creation revolves around God and Him creating us.

You would have nothing to argue about if this was the case and it was only a scientific debate. How can you not see that?? What’s it going to be then smart guy...evolution vs. ?what?

GETREAL posed a question to us "creationists" so therefore I will respond as I see fit that would fall into line with a creationists believe. What you are saying is essentially YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM. You believe in nothing, not God or some other God or whatever your belief is, you believe in it, in this case your belief is governed by your science. In the same respect my belief is governed by my faith, and therefore it makes no sense to tell me this is a purely scientific debate. Let me put it simply:

1) Evolution is scientific

2) Creation is about God and how He put us on this earth.

Thus there are two sides to this argument, one is scientific and one is not. Both have equal weight.

Just to answer a question raised earlier about the "objectivity of the science". If I am a scientist that doesn't believe in God, and I write a paper on evolution vs. creation which side am I going to naturally be partial to? Please don't give me stupid points such as science being science it has to be more unbiased than a Christian paper. It comes down to human nature. They are every bit as credible as your wonderful scientific brains out there.

Here is a question I pose to you demon:
You concede this point:

"Of course it's not, evolution describes what we see in nature, it explains the these facts better than any other explanation.  How is it religious?  Is physics religious? Is chemistry?
You don't understand that ALL science is agnostic, it neither confirms or denies the existance of God."

Let me be clear, you point out that science cannot prove or disprove creation...so why are you here if you know this? How many scientific theories have been disproved? Countless theories have been disproved. But no one has ever seemed to have a concrete fool proof air tight argument that could ever disprove that God exists. In fact I am positive if you got out there and tried to look for proof that God exists you could find it, and most of the time its right in front of you. In the air we breathe to the plants outside, to processes in nature such as photosynthesis. Have you ever stepped back and looked at the world and seen all the things around you, every process.

Think about the moon and it’s causing of tides, caterpillars turning into butterflies, the way humans can love, hate feel, taste, all the range of emotions we can feel. And you say this is all a fluke of nature, of evolution? I don't think so.

Look at a building outside, how did it come about? Let’s think about the logical way it came about (as I am no architect I am generalizing) someone would have to come up with an idea of how it should look. Then they would put pen to paper to get a rough idea of how it would look, then they would work out the dimensions, measure this and that, and then build it. It was designed. Where there is a design there has to be a designer. Like it or not every living thing is an intricate design.

How’s this for a simple science experiment. Take some matches and see how many times you have to drop it in order to make it look like a house i.e. a perfect square with and equilateral triangle on top. Maybe if you really board you could calculated the mathematical improbability that this would eventuate.

Then take a microscopic organism and see how complex it is and calculate that mathematical impossibility.

Since you all seem so familiar with AIG.org you may have heard about their DVD "Unlocking the Mysteries of life" and you will see how complex and how impossible it would be for even a singled celled organism would come about by mere evolution or whatever you would like to call that sorry excuse for a theory. Watch it. You will see once and for all. Oh and shock horror, you will see some scientists that tried to prove evolution correct actually prove it incorrect. It delves into the significance of DNA. I’d like to see you argue with what is raised in that film So do yourself a favor, watch it, and see your science prove your precious theory wrong.

Yes take some quotes from my argument, take them out of context...by all means don't even think of the meaning of what I am saying as a whole. Somethings can be quote out of context, so please when you quote me, quote me in context of what I am saying. Any fool can take some ones argument out of context and make himself look smart...


 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 08:37 AM on June 19, 2006 | IP
Bubble

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just wondering what exactly is the definition of evolution in terms of this debate? I don’t claim to know much about evolution. From what I was taught during human biology, and from what I’ve researched, it seems to be the process of a species changing into a “better” species. However, like Birchie, I’m a bit confused at the fine line some ppl draw between evolution and adaptation.
For example, the moth that changed colour due to the soot on the trees - that’s a classic example of adaptation right? (The moth is still a moth).
Basically, I’m asking if evolution is endeavouring to explain the origins of life in this debate or the diversification of species? This is the crux of the issue for me…If evolution is simply how the moth changed colour then it seems futile to compare creationism to evolution because they are not mutually exclusive theories (according to the definition of theory http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory I think I’m within my rights calling creationism a theory as well). I believe in Jesus Christ and the Bible, and I don’t see how adaptation contradicts creationism at all, if anything it just demonstrates God’s greatness in my mind. Creationism and adaptation can co-exist as they are not means to the same end i.e creationism leads to creation of the moth, adaptation results in the same moth being better suited to an alteration in its environment.
Also, I assumed that since this debate was headed creationism vs evolution is was not “only a scientific one”. Yes, evolution may be “ONLY a scientific theory”, but creationism is not. Therefore, what is the point of establishing an argument regarding creationism and evolution yet not even stepping outside the realm of science. Like Birchie said, it does seem close minded and luke-warm to wave a banner of agnosticism and open-mindedness but only look at the one side of the argument. Sure, I can understand that Christian viewpoint’s may seem illogical to some, however if you look at the other side of the coin, evolution also has some pretty big stumbling blocks (depending on whether you’re talking bout evolution or adaptation of course).
Before I go any further, can someone please clarify the evolution vs adaptation issue Birchie raised earlier, otherwise it’s a bit like comparing apples and oranges…



-------
"A great many open minds should be closed for repairs"
- Toledo Blade
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 09:02 AM on June 19, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think what Entwick is trying to point out is that most Christians don't base their beliefs solely (sp?) on faith.  After all, if you don't know WHY you believe in something then why is your point anymore valid than someone else's.  Druids have faith.  Wiccans have faith.  Why don't you believe in those.  If you don't know WHY you believe in the bible then you can't make an intelligent argument one way or the other.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 12:23 PM on June 19, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

EMeyers basically has it down. Birchie, if the Bible is required in order to debate Evolution, then so is the Koran, the Talmud, the Torah, the Book of Buddha, the Book of the Mormon, etc...

You still have yet to explain how the simple existence of contrary viewpoints to evolution make them just as valid as the science that backs the ToE.

For example, the moth that changed colour due to the soot on the trees - that’s a classic example of adaptation right? (The moth is still a moth).


It is indeed evolution, and not adaptation. Adaptation occurs to an oranism while it is alive. Adaptation is, for instance, when human beings learned how to use rocks and bones as tools. It did require reproduction. Evolution, on the other hand, involves the natural selection of life. No new species need to be punched out in order for evolution to occur. (Though, it's worth mentioning again that Birchie is absolutely incorrect in saying speciation has never been observed.)

Basically, I’m asking if evolution is endeavouring to explain the origins of life in this debate or the diversification of species? This is the crux of the issue for me…If evolution is simply how the moth changed colour then it seems futile to compare creationism to evolution because they are not mutually exclusive theories


Exactlly! Exactly! You're dead on, there. People are all too often mislead into believing that Evolution has something to do with the beginning of life, when in fact it has only to do with the change of life.

Yes, evolution may be “ONLY a scientific theory”, but creationism is not. Therefore, what is the point of establishing an argument regarding creationism and evolution yet not even stepping outside the realm of science. Like Birchie said, it does seem close minded and luke-warm to wave a banner of agnosticism and open-mindedness but only look at the one side of the argument. Sure, I can understand that Christian viewpoint’s may seem illogical to some, however if you look at the other side of the coin, evolution also has some pretty big stumbling blocks (depending on whether you’re talking bout evolution or adaptation of course).


My problem with the assertion that the study of religion is necessary in this debate comes from the fact that religion by itself cannot disprove a scientific theory. You need evidence. It doesn't matter how many times you point out that a religious text is inconsistent with an idea in science, because science is based on evidence, not stand-alone assertions.

Before I go any further, can someone please clarify the evolution vs adaptation issue Birchie raised earlier, otherwise it’s a bit like comparing apples and oranges…


I hope my attempted explanation was sufficient. Please ask questions if it wasn't.

You are making no sense at all. Like non whatsoever. THINK before you reply to this. You CANNOT have an argument involving evolution vs. creationism with out involving talking about faith because creation revolves around God and Him creating us.


The Bible is only worth bringing up if someone is attempting to disprove it. And we aren't...

What you are saying is essentially YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM.


Gentreal's acceptance of the ToE is based on evidence. It can be disproved. Your beliefs have no such ability. It is useless to bring them up in this debate, because they can't be backed up nor shown to be false.

Thus there are two sides to this argument, one is scientific and one is not. Both have equal weight.


Just how to do you come to that conclusion--that both have equal weight? Science cannot touch religion, and religion cannot touch science. They're not comparable.

Just to answer a question raised earlier about the "objectivity of the science". If I am a scientist that doesn't believe in God, and I write a paper on evolution vs. creation which side am I going to naturally be partial to? Please don't give me stupid points such as science being science it has to be more unbiased than a Christian paper. It comes down to human nature. They are every bit as credible as your wonderful scientific brains out there.


Of course they're credible, but only when talking about Christianity. A non-scientist, no matter what religion s/he does or does not subscribe to, is not a credible source to get scientific information from. You don't consult your plumber when you have a tooth-ache, do you? I would hope you wouldn't ask a scientist who only has a college major in biology to explain the philosophy of Christianity. It doesn't make sense to do so.

Neither does it make sense to ask a philosopher who only has a college major in theology to explain the scientific process of Evolution.

How many scientific theories have been disproved? Countless theories have been disproved. But no one has ever seemed to have a concrete fool proof air tight argument that could ever disprove that God exists.


Evolution isn't supposed to disprove the existence of God. That topic is completely irrelevant.

In fact I am positive if you got out there and tried to look for proof that God exists you could find it, and most of the time its right in front of you. In the air we breathe to the plants outside, to processes in nature such as photosynthesis. Have you ever stepped back and looked at the world and seen all the things around you, every process.


You've already explained that you dislike it when your opponent uses circular reasoning, and here you are doing just that. How do we know air was intelligently designed, and how is it possible to conclude that something positively was not designed? What evidence is there to look for that would determine the difference between the two?

It was designed. Where there is a design there has to be a designer. Like it or not every living thing is an intricate design.


Once again, circular reasoning. "How do we know it was designed? Because there's a designer. How do we know there's a designer? Because it was designed."

That doesn't cut butter, Birchie.

Since you all seem so familiar with AIG.org you may have heard about their DVD "Unlocking the Mysteries of life" and you will see how complex and how impossible it would be for even a singled celled organism would come about by mere evolution or whatever you would like to call that sorry excuse for a theory.


Evolution does not create single-celled organisms. It changes them. Perhaps if we could finally get back on topic...

Yes take some quotes from my argument, take them out of context...by all means don't even think of the meaning of what I am saying as a whole. Somethings can be quote out of context, so please when you quote me, quote me in context of what I am saying. Any fool can take some ones argument out of context and make himself look smart...


Newsflash: there are some on this board who disagree with what you say. Do not act like the evolutionist-backed-in-a-corner you ranted about earlier, and throw out meaningless accusations and hasty conclusions. Simply because we are bothering to rebuttle your points does not by default mean we are taking you out of context. If we are taking you out of context, kindly quote us and show us where.

Now, speaking of out of context....

How can you even begin to tell me I am close minded when you are as equally close minded.


Do we really need to review what it was I told you?

Birchie: Let me just add this: it seems when evolutionists get backed into a corner, they try to poke holes by pulling you up on technicalities such as spelling or will try a circular argument.

Me: I'll be upfront: you definetely are closeminded and inexperienced if you think such tactics only apply to evolutionists. Irrelevant nitpicking technicalities like grammar show up on both sides of every debate from Abortion to Zoology. Do not pretend it's always your opponent.


It's a conditional, Birchie. You're only closeminded if your beliefs fit in the specific example I stated above. I assume that you're smarter than that, however, and unless you aren't, I never said you were at all close-minded. Your next statement shows you completely misunderstood what I was talking about:

I have been taught evolution, and just because I don't seem to have the same grasp of science as you seem to (I have my field of specialty - Accountancy - just not science). I consider myself as level headed as the next guy.


I never said you don't have a grasp on science.

You also mentioned my "bias" websites. Wake up buddy - everything has bias. People who write against creation also have bias. Please. Just spare me the semantics.


I don't quote opinions and arguments from sources and refer to them as facts, and neither should you. When a creationist source says that changing of a DNA sequence through a process unguided by God is scientifically impossible, you look elsewhere for the information, because it isn't credible. Likewise, when a source against Creationism claims that there isn't enough water to flood the entire earth, I would expect you to look it up on a non-biased source that doesn't have anything to do with the argument, and verify the fact. And there certainly are non-biased sources for that kind of information. A geology textbook isn't going to care whether or not its facts help or hurt an argument in Creationism. If there is a certain amount of water on the planet, you can trust a book on geology to give you an accurate measurement.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 1:53 PM on June 19, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You are making no sense at all. Like non whatsoever. THINK before you reply to this. You CANNOT have an argument involving evolution vs. creationism with out involving talking about faith because creation revolves around God and Him creating us.

You're the one who doesn't understand science and is making no sense.  Faith has no place in science, evolution is scientific, therefore, you cannot invoke faith in a debate about creationism vs. evolution, simple as that.  The theory of evolution is based on observable, testable evidence, creation is based on faith, it's not scientific.

You would have nothing to argue about if this was the case and it was only a scientific debate. How can you not see that?? What’s it going to be then smart guy...evolution vs. ?what?

Creationism is a failed scientific theory, it made testable claims, that the earth was 6,000 years old, that a world wide flood covered the world and organisms don't change.  All these claims have been tested and falsified.  This means that creationism has been falsified.  Evolution, on the other hand, has been fully supported by all available evidence.  It has made thousands of successful predictions, it has been practically applied.  As to creation, which is not the same as creationism, it says a supreme magical being is behind everything.  Since it invokes the supernatural, it can not be scientific.  You can believe in it if you want, but you can't claim it has any support besides your faith.  As far as evolution vs. creationism, it is silly for YECs to argue for it since it has already been decsively disproven.

Thus there are two sides to this argument, one is scientific and one is not. Both have equal weight.

Absolutely untrue, you may think they carry equal weight, but they don't, the evidence makes that clear.  You can believe in any fairy tale you want, that doesn't mean squat.  

Just to answer a question raised earlier about the "objectivity of the science". If I am a scientist that doesn't believe in God, and I write a paper on evolution vs. creation which side am I going to naturally be partial to? Please don't give me stupid points such as science being science it has to be more unbiased than a Christian paper. It comes down to human nature. They are every bit as credible as your wonderful scientific brains out there.

Ridiculous!  Scientists go where the data leads, it the data supported creationism, they would support creationism.  Creationsits (not christians, since the majority of christians accept evolution), already have their truth and ignore any evidence that contradicts this.  Because they already have their conclusions drawn, they can't do unbiased research, they can't do real science.  And of course you make the major mistake of failing to aknowledge that many scientists, biologiists who accept evolution are Christians.  This completely invalidates your point since christian scientists accept evolution.  

Let me be clear, you point out that science cannot prove or disprove creation...so why are you here if you know this?

Because science can't prove or disprove there is a magical being behind the natural forces that created and govern the universe.  What science has shown us is that a supreme, magical god is NOT NECESSARY!  God isn't needed, whether He is there or not.  God isn't needed to explain the begining of the universe, God isn't needed to explain the first formation of life, God isn't needed to explain the diversification of life on earth.

How many scientific theories have been disproved? Countless theories have been disproved. But no one has ever seemed to have a concrete fool proof air tight argument that could ever disprove that God exists.

Countless theories have been disproven, like the churches claims that the earth was unmoving, that the sun revolved around the earth, that the world was 6,000 years old, yes, that's how science works, theories are modified and sometimes disproven.  But since God is claimed to be supernatural, science doesn't say anything about his existance.   As it stands now, there is NO evidence to support the existance of any god.  You would think that when creationists want to drag God into science debates, they would have some evidence but since man first worshipped a god, there has been none whatsoever.  The burden of proof is on you to support your extraordinary claim, not on science to disprove it.  You and your religious brethern have failed to do so.

In fact I am positive if you got out there and tried to look for proof that God exists you could find it, and most of the time its right in front of you.

Science doesn't deal in proof, it deals in evidence and no one has been able to to produce one shred of evidence to support the existance of any god.

In the air we breathe to the plants outside, to processes in nature such as photosynthesis. Have you ever stepped back and looked at the world and seen all the things around you, every process.

Yes and every process can be explained by natural forces, God is not needed.  Your ignorance of the physical world is not evidence of God.

Think about the moon and it’s causing of tides, caterpillars turning into butterflies, the way humans can love, hate feel, taste, all the range of emotions we can feel. And you say this is all a fluke of nature, of evolution? I don't think so.

Of course not, Evolution doesn't deal in "flukes", it's not about random chance, you've demonstrated that you don't understand evolution.  But everything you've mentioned can be explained by natural forces, no God needed.

Look at a building outside, how did it come about? Let’s think about the logical way it came about (as I am no architect I am generalizing) someone would have to come up with an idea of how it should look. Then they would put pen to paper to get a rough idea of how it would look, then they would work out the dimensions, measure this and that, and then build it. It was designed. Where there is a design there has to be a designer. Like it or not every living thing is an intricate design.

Horrible analogy, buildings don't reproduce.  Living things do and they reproduce imperfectly, ever hear of mutations?  These mutations are filtered through natural selection, an unitelligent, non random selection process.  Once again, nature can explain what we see, no God needed.

How’s this for a simple science experiment. Take some matches and see how many times you have to drop it in order to make it look like a house i.e. a perfect square with and equilateral triangle on top. Maybe if you really board you could calculated the mathematical improbability that this would eventuate.

This has nothing to do with evolution, it is irrelevant.  Evolution has nothing to do with chance.

Then take a microscopic organism and see how complex it is and calculate that mathematical impossibility.

What are you babbling about?  What mathematical impossiblity???  The organism exists, the possibility it exists is 1.  Doesn't seem very far fetched...

Once again, AIG is wrong, you don't understand science or evolution and you ignorance doesn't count as proof of God or creation.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:22 PM on June 19, 2006 | IP
Bubble

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I acknowledge faith is indeed a personal choice based on logical and illogical reasons. I believe my faith is logical, but it will not convince others of my viewpoint on creationism unless of course they share the same Christian mindset. In the same way, I find many things about evolution illogical (evolution as the origin of life that is). I’m not really trying to make any earth-shattering point here besides the fact that, like I said, agnosticism claims to neither deny nor prove the existence of God. Therefore, how is that different from atheism if it does not at least somehow incorporate the possibility of God into their theories? (Apologies if you do). It’s a lot easier to ignore something and assume its non-existence, than it is to add something in. If someone is indifferent to the taste of garlic, they’re hardly going to use garlic in their cooking – they’re more likely to leave it out, unless someone else adds it in.
My main point of contention is still the evolution vs adaptation issue. I was under the impression that adaptation was “Any heritable characteristic of an organism that improves its ability to survive and reproduce in its environment. Also used to describe the process of genetic change within a population, as influenced by natural selection” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/glossary/glossary.html, and that evolution, defined by Darwin as "descent with modification", “is the change in a lineage of populations between generations. In general terms, biological evolution is the process of change by which new species develop from preexisting species over time; in genetic terms, evolution can be defined as any change in the frequency of alleles in populations of organisms from generation to generation.”

Moving on from that point though…a detailed analysis of evolution vs adaptation isn’t actually essential to what I’m getting to. It has been established by EntwickelnCollin that evolution “has only to do with the change of life” not the beginning. However, despite whether you believe in creation or not – it is invariably a theory to explain the beginning of life. Therefore, like I’ve already said, if evolution (assuming change of life version) and creationism are not mutually exclusive theories, what is actually being debated? Essentially a debate should consist of conflicting issues i.e. black vs white; unless evolution can account for the origins of life this debate is grey vs white…



-------
"A great many open minds should be closed for repairs"
- Toledo Blade
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 12:51 AM on June 20, 2006 | IP
zerocool_12790

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38,

Regarding your reply to my post you wrote:

"Why the God of the Bible?  Energy exists, it is entirely more plausible that energy is eternal, that energy predates the universe."


My original post was in answer to GETREAL's request that someone show "proofs" of God's existence. I gave a "proof" which was:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Because of this "proof" I concluded that the first cause was the God of the Bible. Could it also be used to support any god from any religion? Sure. But GETREAL's request specified that I give "proof" that my God (he used god, but I'm forced to assume He meant the God of the Bible, even if he meant anyone's god that would still suffice) exist. I never said that the conclusion could "only" mean the God of the Bible. I choose to believe that it is the God of the Bible. But in terms of GETREAL's request my "proof" most certainly satisfies the criterion that the God of the Bible exists. As to your belief that the first cause could just be "energy" I direct you back to my post where I've already answered that.

Obviously there is no such thing as "one proof" that proves God exists unequivocally. So instead I must show God exists in increments building support upon one "proof" after another.

"Creationists invariably can't explain why the first cause must be an omnipotent, omniscient entity, let alone provide evidence to support this conclusion."

You should take your own advice and show support for your own claims, especially to this baseless accusation.

First let us conclude on the "proof" that I've given, then we can move on to the First Causes' character.

best wishes,


zerocool_12790


-------
---There is a common belief rapidly spreading, which states that scientists are unquestionably ethical and objective. This is a gross myth that must be stopped before scientists claim it’s true.
 


Posts: 37 | Posted: 01:06 AM on June 20, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In the same way, I find many things about evolution illogical (evolution as the origin of life that is).

But evolution doesn't have anything to do with the origin of life.  The theory of evolution presupposes the existance of life.  Abiogenesis deals with the origins of life.

I’m not really trying to make any earth-shattering point here besides the fact that, like I said, agnosticism claims to neither deny nor prove the existence of God. Therefore, how is that different from atheism if it does not at least somehow incorporate the possibility of God into their theories?

Science is agnostic to God because God is beyond science's ability to investigate.  Since there is no evidence either way, since God can supposedly ignore natural laws and therefore can't be empirically tested, science can't investigate him and can make no claims either way.  What science can and does do, is show that God is not needed to explain what we see in nature.  Atheists say there is no God, science says we can't tell if there's a god or not, but we don't need him to explain certain phenomenon.

My main point of contention is still the evolution vs adaptation issue. I was under the impression that adaptation was “Any heritable characteristic of an organism that improves its ability to survive and reproduce in its environment.

If the heritable characteristic changes in a population of organisms over time, it's evolution.  I'd like to see a scientific definition of "adaptation" and how biologists say it differs from evolution.  Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequencies in a population over time, that would easily include your definition of adaptation.

However, despite whether you believe in creation or not – it is invariably a theory to explain the beginning of life. Therefore, like I’ve already said, if evolution (assuming change of life version) and creationism are not mutually exclusive theories, what is actually being debated? Essentially a debate should consist of conflicting issues i.e. black vs white; unless evolution can account for the origins of life this debate is grey vs white…

Creationists are the one making the claim that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive.  Most Christians worldside see evolution and creation as mutually inclusive, evolution is the way God created.  I always thought creationists objected to evolution because according to the Bible organisms don't change within their "kind", even though they could never define kind.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:44 AM on June 20, 2006 | IP
Bubble

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I accept that "God is beyond science's ability to investigate" and cannot be "empirically tested", and whilst I do believe God created what science studies (therefore He is intertwined in science), I understand once again that faith is a very personal thing, unlike science, and will not convince anyone on its own. So ill leave it at that...
However, I would like a biological comparison of evolution and adaptation. Those definitions I quoted both came from the same website, but I can not tell the difference between the two. On the same topic, the "theory of evolution pressuposes the existence of life." By "life", do you mean a self sustaining earth and a single celled organism? I'd just like to know how far evolution (in the context of this debate) is claiming to go back, i.e. Is it claiming that all species evolved from the single celled organism?
Looking 4wd to a reply



-------
"A great many open minds should be closed for repairs"
- Toledo Blade
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 8:15 PM on June 20, 2006 | IP
birchie1983

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I agree with Bubble. If evolution presupposes life, then where did the first life come from, so evolution can take place?

Are you ignoring certain parts of a logical argument to make your point? You cannot ignore the foundation of all of this. "Where did we come from?"

Take a movie for example. You see the end, and yet from the the end result you are trying to extrapolate a begining. You have made a logical presumption on the body of that movie, but are ignoring how it started. An end must have a begining and a begining an end or there is no context for the body the story to relate to. You are probably the only evolutionist I have heard say that evolution presupposes life.

You are talking about origin science - unobservable science, science with out testing. In other words "best guess science". At best evolution is subjective, rather than objective. It was thought up by people who in the first place don't believe in God, and as I had said before, it is a theory borne out of bias and necessity to explain away God as a creator. You cannot deny that the human body was designed, therefore there must be a designer.

Lets say for example a man who has never see a computer before, sits down and studies the thing for 10 years and reproduced the parts for himself and makes one for himself. That computer has a specific design and purpose, and required intelligence to reproduce it. He cannot on completion of his replica state "My goodness this computer must have built itself." Designs and intricacy do not just pop out of randomness or evolution. It is a logical mathematical fact - an observable fact I might add.

Which leads to the adaptation vs evolution thing Bubble brought up earlier. Adaptation is exactly what it is - adapting - small changes with in a species. Evolution is the creation of an entirly new species.

On another point, if evolution is true and we ahve found all these fossils etc, why haven't we found fossils of certain species turning into the different species? The incremental changes that is the very foundation of evolution?
 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 10:21 PM on June 20, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.


And of course, this can't be applied to God because you arbitrarily claim He always existed...  Yes, the universe had a cause, what evidence do you have that a magic sky man started it?

Because of this "proof" I concluded that the first cause was the God of the Bible.

Again, why?  No evidence, just primitive myths to supprt your conclusion.

I never said that the conclusion could "only" mean the God of the Bible. I choose to believe that it is the God of the Bible. But in terms of GETREAL's request my "proof" most certainly satisfies the criterion that the God of the Bible exists.

I'll agree that a god is a remote possibility and you choose to believe it's the God of the Bible, But I see no "proof" that ANY god exists, let alone created anything...

As to your belief that the first cause could just be "energy" I direct you back to my post where I've already answered that.

Yeah, and you answered it poorly, you're merely using special pleading, "energy couldn't be eternal, but God could because he's magic!"

Obviously there is no such thing as "one proof" that proves God exists
unequivocally.


And just as obviously, there is NO evidence to support the existance of any god...

You should take your own advice and show support for your own claims, especially to this baseless accusation.

Nice dodge, you still can't show us any evidence or any reason why the first cause MUST be an omnipotent, omniscient entity...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:37 PM on June 20, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

However, I would like a biological comparison of evolution and adaptation. Those definitions I quoted both came from the same website, but I can not tell the difference between the two.

The only difference I can make out from the website you sited is this, your definition of adaptation says "Any heritable characteristic of an organism that improves its ability to survive and reproduce in its environment", it says an organism, one organism.  It seems to me an organism can adapt to it's environment due to a heritable change.  Evolution isn't about a single member of a population undergoing a beneficial mutation, it's about the entire population acquiring this change.  In other words, single organisms (adaption) don't evolve, populations evolve.  Does that answer your question?

By "life", do you mean a self sustaining earth and a single celled organism? I'd just like to know how far evolution (in the context of this debate) is claiming to go back, i.e. Is it claiming that all species evolved from the single celled organism?

I'm not sure what you mean by a "self sustaining earth"...the first organisms were likely extremophiles that lived on inorganic substances, so as long as the earth had minerals, they had food...
And yes evolution supports the conclusion that all life evolved from a common ancestral population.  If the conditions for life arising from non life existed, it's doubtful that only one organism arose, but more likely a population of organisms.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:03 AM on June 21, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I agree with Bubble. If evolution presupposes life, then where did the first life come from, so evolution can take place?

Doesn't matter where life came from, the theory of evolution doesn't investigate that.  
If the first life arose from natural causes, doesn't matter, the evidence shows us it evolved, if the first life was magically zapped into existance by a magic god, doesn't matter, the evidence shows us it then evovled.  You don't understand how science works.

Are you ignoring certain parts of a logical argument to make your point? You cannot ignore the foundation of all of this. "Where did we come from?"

I'm ignoring nothing.  Scientific theories have their boundries, biologists study evolution, organic chemists study abiogenesis, two different fields of science that study different processes.  Yes, they are connected, but evolution is not contingent on how life formed, only that it did form.  Following your logic, since we don't know exactly what caused the Big Bang, the science of chemistry can't be right (if we don't know how the particles that make up matter first formed, how can we understand how they function), we can't know how energy behaves (we can't harness electricity or atomic energy because how can we understand it if we don't know it's origin?), our studies of gravity can't be right( if we don't even know what gravity is, let alone how if came about, how can we fly planes and launch rockets???).  Quite simply, you're wrong.

Take a movie for example. You see the end, and yet from the the end result you are trying to extrapolate a begining.

Yes, we extrapolate the begining based on our observations of the end, not on a book written by superstitious primitives who have never even seen a movie...

An end must have a begining and a begining an end or there is no context for the body the story to relate to.

Yes, and in science different scientists study different parts of the "story" using different methods and tools.  Just because we don't know the begining doesn't mean we can't make predictions about other parts of the movie.

You are probably the only evolutionist I have heard say that evolution presupposes life.

It's obvious that you've never read any real research on the theory of evolution, because every biologist says evolution presupposes life,
from the University of California:Berkeley
"Evolutionary theory deals mainly with how life changed after its origin. Science does try to investigate how life started (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but these considerations are not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes."

From Wikipedia:
Wiki
"The chemical evolution from self-catalytic chemical reactions to life (see Origin of life) is not a part of biological evolution."

Seems everyone but you knows the theory of evolution presupposes the existance of life.

You are talking about origin science - unobservable science, science with out testing. In other words "best guess
science".


No we're not, we're talking about the theory of evolution, the central, organizing  concept of modern biology.  We're talking about one of the best supported theories in science, we're talking about a theory that is observable, testable and has an avalanche of evidence supporting it, in multiple scientific disciplines and no evidence that falsifies it.  We're talking about a scientific theory that is so successful, that over 99.9% of all biologists accept.  We're talking about a scientific theory that has made and continues to make thousands of successful predictions.  We're talking about a scientific theory that is so strong, it is practically applied in modern medicine, farming, animal husbandry and industry.  You need to do some real research!

At best evolution is subjective, rather than objective.

No, the evidence supporting evolution is objective, like the fossil record, transitional organisms, twin nested hierarchies, comparative anatomy, genetics, vestigial organs, ERVs, biogeography and on and on.

It was thought up by people who in the first place don't believe in God, and as I had said before, it is a theory borne out of bias and necessity to explain away God as a creator.

Once again, completely and 100% wrong.  Darwin was a christian when he first proposed the TOE.  Evolution says nothing about any god and evolution is accepted by a majority of the worlds christians.

You cannot deny that the human body was designed, therefore there must be a
designer.


The human body is clearly a result of mutations and natural selection.  If you claim a supreme being designed the human body, how do you account for all the design flaws?  Your god must be an idiot!

Lets say for example a man who has never see a computer before, sits down and studies the thing for 10 years and reproduced the parts for himself and makes one for himself.

Irrelevant analogy, computers don't reproduce.

Designs and intricacy do not just pop out of randomness or evolution. It is a logical mathematical fact - an observable fact I might add.

Evolution is not random, so your point is worthless.  And please show us the "logical mathematical, observable fact"...You don't know what you're talking about!

Which leads to the adaptation vs evolution thing Bubble brought up earlier. Adaptation is exactly what it is - adapting - small changes with in a species. Evolution is the creation of an entirly new species.

And since we've seen new species arise, both in the wild and in the lab, evolution must be valid and you must be wrong!  That was easy!

On another point, if evolution is true and we ahve found all these fossils etc, why haven't we found fossils of certain species turning into the different species?

We have, your just too lazy to do any research to find them!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:29 AM on June 21, 2006 | IP
Bubble

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So essentially this debate centres around whether God created species or whether they evolved from a common ancestor.
With that in mind, it seems like a futile argument to me. Even if a scientist can prove evolution exists to some degree (i.e moth example), this does not prove worldwide evolution of all species (not to me anyway). For example, why are there no neanderthal men existing today? (i know that example is overused, but no one's been able to logically explain it to me).
Finally, before I move on I was hoping another creationist would give an insight into what they actually believe in relation to this... Specifically, did God create the species and minor evolutions (i.e moth) occurred from then on? Is there anything in the Bible contradicting this?
Cheers


-------
"A great many open minds should be closed for repairs"
- Toledo Blade
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 02:09 AM on June 21, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So essentially this debate centres around whether God created species or whether they evolved from a common ancestor.

Yet we see new species arising now, without God creating them, new species arising due solely to mutation, genetic drift, sexual selection, natural selection, so where is the debate?  We know how new species arise, we directly observe how new species arise, by evolution, they are not magically created by God.  There is no debate in science, evolution is valid.

With that in mind, it seems like a futile argument to me. Even if a scientist can prove evolution exists to some degree (i.e moth example), this does not prove worldwide evolution of all species (not to me anyway).

Sure it does, species arise due to evolutionary processes, this is observed and not in doubt.  We can see, through genetics, when mutations occurred.  Evolution is the only valid explaination for the diversity of life on earth.  World wide evolution is completely supported by all available evidence.  If you don't accept this, show us your evidence and explain all the evidence that supports evolution using your hypothesis, tell us what predictions your hypothesis makes and tell us what could potentially falsify it...

For example, why are there no neanderthal men existing today? (i know that example is overused, but no one's been able to logically explain it to me).

Explain it logically??  Easily done, Neanderthals were out competed by Homo sapiens, simple as that. Do some research.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 07:14 AM on June 21, 2006 | IP
birchie1983

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This argument is completly pointless. No one can find common ground.
 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 7:33 PM on June 21, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Therefore, how is that different from atheism if it does not at least somehow incorporate the possibility of God into their theories? (Apologies if you do).


That was my point from earlier. No scientific theory says God can't exist. No theory should have to say in its definition, however, that God is incorporated. That would be silly and unnecessary, because the definition speaks for itself. Evolution doesn't say God can't exist anymore than it says grass can't grow.

Therefore, like I’ve already said, if evolution (assuming change of life version) and creationism are not mutually exclusive theories, what is actually being debated? Essentially a debate should consist of conflicting issues i.e. black vs white; unless evolution can account for the origins of life this debate is grey vs white…


Your investigation into this issue is very wise, I think. This debate is anything but black and white, although there are many people on both sides who wish to make it so, with absurd ideas like "Christianity vs. Atheism" or "Science vs. Fundamentalism".

I agree with Bubble. If evolution presupposes life, then where did the first life come from, so evolution can take place?


It really doesn't matter. If you were an orphan who never knew your parents--in other words, how your life came into being--you'd still have no reason to doubt that you have been growing since your time as an infant.

Are you ignoring certain parts of a logical argument to make your point? You cannot ignore the foundation of all of this. "Where did we come from?"


We certainly can ignore it. It's not a foundation at all. Either way, Evolution works. We could stipulate, for the sake of avoiding an irrelevant argument, that a supernatural being exists, and that the deity placed the first life on Earth and never touched it since. Evolution would not be falsified.

Take a movie for example. You see the end, and yet from the the end result you are trying to extrapolate a begining. You have made a logical presumption on the body of that movie, but are ignoring how it started. An end must have a begining and a begining an end or there is no context for the body the story to relate to. You are probably the only evolutionist I have heard say that evolution presupposes life.


You are probably the only person I've met who didn't realize evolution presupposes life.

You are talking about origin science - unobservable science, science with out testing. In other words "best guess science". At best evolution is subjective, rather than objective. It was thought up by people who in the first place don't believe in God


::Sigh:: ... Wrong. The idea of hereditary descent started with a monk in his garden, who realized that flowers inherited specific color petals from their parents. Darwin, among almost everyone else of his time, worshipped and belonged to a religious institution. You can argue that Darwin went to Church but might not have actually believed in God, but that would be nothing more than your personal speculation.

and as I had said before, it is a theory borne out of bias and necessity to explain away God as a creator. You cannot deny that the human body was designed, therefore there must be a designer.


Wait, what? Since when can't we deny that a human body was designed? You jumped straight from "Evolution is an atheistic conspiracy to dethrone God" to "It's a fact that we're designed". Where's the evidence for that one, much less the relevance to the issue you were talking about in the same paragraph? I still like the circular reasoning, though. (We know God exists because something's been designed, and we know that thing's been designed because...)

Lets say for example a man who has never see a computer before, sits down and studies the thing for 10 years and reproduced the parts for himself and makes one for himself. That computer has a specific design and purpose, and required intelligence to reproduce it. He cannot on completion of his replica state "My goodness this computer must have built itself." Designs and intricacy do not just pop out of randomness or evolution. It is a logical mathematical fact - an observable fact I might add.


Let's make a more realistic, relevant, and applicable analogy: A man who has never seen a plant before sits down and studies a field of grass and flowers for 10 years, and watches as the praire grows and the life reproduces by itself. The last conclusion anyone would come to is that someone designed the praire.

Which leads to the adaptation vs evolution thing Bubble brought up earlier. Adaptation is exactly what it is - adapting - small changes with in a species. Evolution is the creation of an entirly new species.


Evolution is not the creation of anything. It's the change of generations of life, no matter how small those changes may be on the taxonomic scale.

On another point, if evolution is true and we ahve found all these fossils etc, why haven't we found fossils of certain species turning into the different species? The incremental changes that is the very foundation of evolution?


Been hiding under a rock lately, eh? Within the past several months, there have been two very important fossil findings in relation to "incremental changes" of life's history. That makes the list, which is already thousands high with fossils, just a bit higher.

So essentially this debate centres around whether God created species or whether they evolved from a common ancestor.


That's only the silly black and white representation of the issue that Creationists would like us all to see.

For example, why are there no neanderthal men existing today? (i know that example is overused, but no one's been able to logically explain it to me).


There are a number of explanations, which all fairly easy to conceive, but the most sensible one goes like this:

Human beings, a rival species to the Neanderthals, became superior during the Paleolithic Period, and likely put enough enough pressure on the Neanderthals to drive them to extinction. It's agreed by most experts that Neanderthals' culture developed slower than humans', that their brain capacity was slightly smaller due to the shape of their head, and that their technology did not advance as quickly as ours.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 05:13 AM on June 24, 2006 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by:
ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.