Evidence for creationism

[MobBoss]

I agree with the basic idea if that we can create life(in a lab), then life could have been created. That doesn't necessarily mean that "God did it" though.

It doesnt negate it either, however.

 

[Murky]

There are a few basic camps when it comes to creationism. The Faithful and the Empirical. The Faithful base their beliefs about creation by what they were told by their religious texts. The Empirical want proof, fine details and won't take anything less than factual evidence of a mechanism for creation itself. The Faithful demand that science disprove their story of creation, but then dismiss anything that would actually do so. Then you start having these splinter groups forming. Some of the faithful accept evolution(because the evidence is there), but with an initial creation event so that they can still cling to their religion. You still have the answers in genesis crowd that hangs on to their religious dogma, by denying evidence.

 

[History_Buff]

It doesnt negate it either, however.

No, it doesn't, but that the possibility exists isn't evidence that 'God Did It' either.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

The God of the gaps though!!!! Surely there will be gaps we can never fill with "science"

 

[Xanikk999]

It doesnt negate it either, however.

It doesnt negate that evolution wasnt designed by The Flying Spaghetti Monster and his blessed noodly appendeges either.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Well I've seen this 10 minute youtube video posted before... which is about complexity arising from simple rules


Link to video.

*warning: Coldplay music

Thanks PS. That video put me in mind of Adrian Thompson and his evolutionary circuits (though I had to track down my copy of The Science of the Discworld to remember his name).

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Christiaan Huygens : "The world is my country, science is my religion."

Problem with qouting Huygens is that he lived in an era where the word science had a different meaning back then, it wasn't until 1678 that science was commonly used in its modern meaning. Before that science was synonymous with any sort of knowledge whether secular or religious.

 

[Tani Coyote]

and there goes the omnipotent god.....

Uh, no, not really. God is restrained only because he allows himself to be restrained by his love. That love, extends to even Satan.

uh, why? bye bye omnipotence.

Because what kind of father kills his children? A father may punish his children, but he will not kill them.

Not "bye bye omnipotence" at all. God's only restrictions are those he places on himself. If we humans can restrain ourselves, why can't someone FAR greater?

hm, what became of the fallen angel crap?

I'm not a Bible-reader. I merely make observations and create theories based on those. Therefore, the Bible's stories are irrelevant when talking to me.

Plenty of suffering in individuals, human and non-human, choice and free will play no role. God is a sadist.

If God was a sadist, he'd enslave you. But you're disagreeing with his existence, aren't you? Sounds like freedom of thought to me.

If the suffering acts as temptation, it just gives him more reason to reward those who stay true to the path of good. Even if that is not its function, it allows God to let the entire world run free, being solely of natural events and the actions of beings.

Never mind the Deist God, who is non-interventionist by principle, apart from setting the natural laws in motion.

to the deteriment of thrid parties, such as new or unborns.

The innocents will go unpunished, those guilty of sin, not so much. A father will spank the unruly child, and will continue to do so until the child changes his behavior.

There would be no point, and thank you for disproving the Christian omnipotent benevolent god!

This is getting tiresome very quick. Could you be less rude?

Omnipotence: God's only limits are his self-restraint. He could kill all of us, kill Satan, etc. if he so chose. But he himself has choices, and he chooses love over bloodlust and vengeance. Therefore, God is perfectly omnipotent. But just because you have power doesn't mean you must use it.

Omnibenevolence: God's emphasis on free will, capability of forgiveness for those who genuinely wish to atone, and reward for those who stay good is proof enough of omnibenevolence. That emphasis on free will forbids involvement in this world's suffering.

if god was omnipotent he could block all evil that makes innocents suffer.

Evil and suffering originate with the actions of human beings most of the time.

If he was to intervene in their infliction of evil, he would violate free will because he would have to prevent them from doing evil. And he cannot bring himself to do that, no matter what the cause; free will is inalienable for him.

This is a very easy concept to grasp; free will is the one value he wants to protect above all.

It is up to ourselves to alleviate suffering in this world, as it's compatible with our free will. The law and government give us protection from eachother; God need not add himself to it.

 

[Murky]

Problem with qouting Huygens is that he lived in an era where the word science had a different meaning back then, it wasn't until 1678 that science was commonly used in its modern meaning. Before that science was synonymous with any sort of knowledge whether secular or religious.

Yes, but essentially he was saying that he wasn't for "God and Country" like a lot people are today.

 

[Berzerker]

The Earth formed from swirling chunks of rock and debris in the proto-planetary disc.

But where? Remember, according to a current theory the proto-Earth was struck by something very large - a Mars sized object. So did this collision occur here, or somewhere else? Is there evidence of a massive collision? Yes... But not here. Where? Where there's plenty of water, and debris...

It didn't. Millions of years of bombardments from comets covered in ice, melted in to water vapour thanks to the atmosphere being created by volcanic eruptions.

Thats another theory to explain Earth's water, problem is we cant prove these comets existed. The Oort Cloud was a theory designed to explain the occasional comets we see in our neck of the woods, but it has problems. Like retrograde comets... The Earth now appears to have had an ocean 4.4 bya, so if that theory is right - and it aint - the cometary bombardment was very early on and stopped...very early on... That dont jive with an Oort Cloud.

Now, for volcanic eruptions to have supplied the water, that begs the question - the water was here already. It had to be if it was outgassed, and like I said, we have evidence of oceans 4.4 bya. The outgassing occurred very early on... and "stopped" very early on (until the LHB - late heavy bombardment). Btw, comets are just asteroids with plenty of ice... And astronomers have found the water signatures of asteroids matching Earth's, yes, asteroids have lotsa water too. But we should expect that given their location - that point in the solar system where the solar wind pushed volatiles (water vapor) happens to be where they reside, thats where comets begin outgassing their tails due to the solar wind.

Only the atmospheres of planets, and the hard vacuum of space. Plus really long distances.

How about the asteroid belt? It divides the solar system into two groups of planets - 5 inner (the Moon counted) and 5 outer (Pluto counted).

Could do, but we would have found it by now.

Unless the proto-Earth was pushed into a new orbit leaving behind a trail of debris to mark the spot of the collision (Heaven).

How do you shift your interpretive paradigm for the later verses? While you can selectively cut a section out, and make sense of it in an historical setting, the paradigm by which you're interpreting the system completely breaks down over the next dozen verses.

I offered an interpretation for the relevant verses 1-10... While later verses dealing with the sequence of life forms appearing on Earth appear to be inexact , its still quite amazing how much they got right. But thats more a problem of different authors and their attempt to "monotheize" a story involving multiple planetary gods... Nonetheless, Genesis 1-10 does describe a planetary collision and plate tectonics - followed by life...in that order. And thats what the science tells us.

I find it interesting that in this statement you take water as the literal meaning of water, yet further on you take water as being defined as something other then its literal meaning. Tell me, why does the statement above have to be the literal meaning? Have you considered it otherwise?

Water is everywhere, even in asteroids... We can take it literally or metaphorically depending on the context. And water is much more prevalent from the asteroid belt outward. But some ancient peoples did view the planets as "rivers" (thats the key to interpreting Dante's Inferno too) flowing across the sky, so we do need context to understand references to water. In biblical and Mesopotamian lore, the proto-Earth (Tehom, Tiamat) was described as a watery dragon.

If we have any astrophysicists etc I'd love to hear their assessment of the asteroid belt. For example:

Do the asteroids have a tilt or slant to the disk? I took a brief look at the orbital parameters of many and I got the impression they form a tilted disk that increased in tilt heading away from the Sun and a decreasing slant or tilt closer to the Sun. Does this disk come close to pointing at us?

Another interesting phenomenon - Saturn's rings point to Pluto at or near perihelion. And if you look even closer, there are more connections between Saturn and Pluto. They both ascend the ecliptic near the same "longitude" and subtracting Saturn's orbital distance from Pluto's leaves a tidy 2:1 ratio. Genesis doesn't get into that detail unfortunately but the Babylonian Epic of Creation does, and that story describes our solar system before and after "creation". And that story places Tiamat - the biblical Tehom - outside of Venus and Mars... The 6th planet. Now the Earth is the 7th planet

 

[Brian Shanahan]

One other thing they say, which applies to all animals, is "Why would an animal want to change when it's perfectly happy the way it is?"

You don't attend UU by any chance do you?

 

[Traitorfish]

But where? Remember, according to a current theory the proto-Earth was struck by something very large - a Mars sized object. So did this collision occur here, or somewhere else? Is there evidence of a massive collision? Yes... But not here. Where? Where there's plenty of water, and debris...

There's water on the moon?

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Yes, but essentially he was saying that he wasn't for "God and Country" like a lot people are today.

Maybe he was, there are Medieval texts around that pretty much call God the King of Science (pity I managed to throw the releven book into a half-filled bath when I was drunk), well on the God bit anyway. But my point still stands in that he probably wasn't using the word science in the way you and I use it (or what the dictionary says we should be doing anyway). I was just pointing out that quoting a 300 years deat mathematician to refute modern terminology is a bad arguement.

 

[ParkCungHee]

There's water on the moon?

Yes.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/water-moon-nasa-impact-probe/story?id=11939079

 

[Haseri]

I have heard of chimps mourning. I've not heard of crows mourning.

We-ell, it may be projecting human qualities a bit, but they have been known to watch over a site of a dead crow.

But where?

I don't know. I think maybe a bit further out than where the Earth is now. Then, orbital decay meant we've gotten closer to the Sun.

Remember, according to a current theory the proto-Earth was struck by something very large - a Mars sized object. So did this collision occur here, or somewhere else?

I don't understand the question. What do you mean by 'here'? Yes, it occured on Earth. What else is there to say?

Is there evidence of a massive collision? Yes... But not here. Where? Where there's plenty of water, and debris...

The debris turned into the Moon.

Thats another theory to explain Earth's water, problem is we cant prove these comets existed. The Oort Cloud was a theory designed to explain the occasional comets we see in our neck of the woods, but it has problems. Like retrograde comets... The Earth now appears to have had an ocean 4.4 bya, so if that theory is right - and it aint - the cometary bombardment was very early on and stopped...very early on... That dont jive with an Oort Cloud.

Well, the early solar system was a chaotic place. The orbits hadn't stabalised yet, and the gas giants and the moon weren't shielding us from asteroids and comets like they do now. Plus, we didn't have as much of an atmosphere to burn the bigger stuff.

Now, for volcanic eruptions to have supplied the water,

Except they didn't. They supplied the atmosphere.

that begs the question - the water was here already. It had to be if it was outgassed, and like I said, we have evidence of oceans 4.4 bya. The outgassing occurred very early on... and "stopped" very early on (until the LHB - late heavy bombardment). Btw, comets are just asteroids with plenty of ice... And astronomers have found the water signatures of asteroids matching Earth's, yes, asteroids have lotsa water too. But we should expect that given their location - that point in the solar system where the solar wind pushed volatiles (water vapor) happens to be where they reside, thats where comets begin outgassing their tails due to the solar wind.

OK, so I didn't make the distinction between asteroids and comets and how they both contributed.

How about the asteroid belt? It divides the solar system into two groups of planets - 5 inner (the Moon counted) and 5 outer (Pluto counted).

Why count the Moon? That's not a planet. Why not count the hundreds of moons of the gas giants? Saturn's moon Titan is bigger than our Moon. Why doesn't that count? And Pluto isn't a planet. If Pluto is a planet, why not count other Kupier Belt objects of a similar size?

Unless the proto-Earth was pushed into a new orbit leaving behind a trail of debris to mark the spot of the collision (Heaven).

Again, no evidence for this twin 'proto-Earth'. Like I said, if it existed, we would have found it.

 

[carlosMM]

Uh, no, not really. God is restrained only because he allows himself to be restrained by his love. That love, extends to even Satan.

You mean to take back what you wrote and re-phrase as "God doesn't act because he doesn't WANT to act"?

that's an entirely different position, so I will refrain from arguing this point any further until we both know clearly what you want to say, and not only you.

Because what kind of father kills his children? A father may punish his children, but he will not kill them.

erhm, then why is the old Testament, the part of the bible you take all those themes of punishing-father-god concepts etc. from, so full of god killing his children in droves? In fact, killing ALL but a single family that one annoying time? Asking them to kill their OWN children?

Not "bye bye omnipotence" at all. God's only restrictions are those he places on himself. If we humans can restrain ourselves, why can't someone FAR greater?

There you go again, shifting the goalposts. But again you show your god to be a sadist - evil against innocents and god does not protect them?

I'm not a Bible-reader. I merely make observations and create theories based on those. Therefore, the Bible's stories are irrelevant when talking to me.

Hm, basically, you're telling me that you make up your own god as you go along? How, then, did you arrive at all the claims you make? Why is there only one god, why do you call him/her/it by this name, why do you capitalize the word? You sound awfully like the Judeo-Christian priests, but now you claim not to use the same source...

If God was a sadist, he'd enslave you. But you're disagreeing with his existence, aren't you? Sounds like freedom of thought to me.

nonsense
- how dare you predict what god would do?
- how do you know your god has not enslaved me?
- how do you know a sadistic god isn't letting me do what I want because I am satan, and here to torment you?
- please show how the definition "sadist" includes slavery of all humans

If the suffering acts as temptation, it just gives him more reason to reward those who stay true to the path of good. Even if that is not its function, it allows God to let the entire world run free, being solely of natural events and the actions of beings.

Never mind the Deist God, who is non-interventionist by principle, apart from setting the natural laws in motion.

You miss the point - god lets those who do not have free will suffer, from the free will of others and from other causes. That's not temptation, that's not free will, that not choice - that's either a screw-up when creating evil, or negligence and cruelty now.
Hey, why does that remind me of sadism? Letting people suffer for fun?

The innocents will go unpunished,

wrong - ever seen a baby born of a chain-smoker? They go through withdrawal from their first moment after birth. And your god lets that happen so that the mother can exercise her free will?

That is the most sadistic thing I can imagine.

But hey, why stop there, let's look at other horrible things that happen to unborns that have nothing to do with the exercise of free will by anyone. How about all the various bad things that can lead to Siamese twins to die in untero? That's quite painful...... oh, but your god restrains himself - for what purpose exactly? So that innocents suffer?

those guilty of sin, not so much. A father will spank the unruly child, and will continue to do so until the child changes his behavior.

Yeah, reminds me of all the news reports of people beating a two month old to death, or starving a one year old, etc.

This is getting tiresome very quick. Could you be less rude?

I am not rude, I am direct and honest. Your argument showed that omnipotence and benevolence do not go together. Ergo, the Christian concept that claims god is both is shown incorrect.

Omnipotence: God's only limits are his self-restraint. He could kill all of us, kill Satan, etc. if he so chose. But he himself has choices, and he chooses love over bloodlust and vengeance. Therefore, God is perfectly omnipotent. But just because you have power doesn't mean you must use it.

True - strawman argument. I wasn't saying god is not omnipotent, I was saying that the supposedly non-sadistic, benevolent god is certainly not omnipotent:

thank you for disproving the Christian omnipotent benevolent god!

See, there's BOTH words in one sentence!

Omnibenevolence: God's emphasis on free will, capability of forgiveness for those who genuinely wish to atone, and reward for those who stay good is proof enough of omnibenevolence. That emphasis on free will forbids involvement in this world's suffering.

let me rephrase for you: God's own choice is to be cruel by inaction.
I have to say it again:
thank you for disproving the Christian omnipotent benevolent god!

Evil and suffering originate with the actions of human beings most of the time.

maybe - maybe not. Have you counted the malaria victims? the volcanic ash victims? the earthquake victims?
I could go on for ages just listing all the non-human-caused suffering totally out of proportion compared to the "sins" of those made to suffer.

If he was to intervene in their infliction of evil, he would violate free will because he would have to prevent them from doing evil. And he cannot bring himself to do that, no matter what the cause; free will is inalienable for him.

Not the point you seem to try to answer. I was not talking about human-induced suffering!

This is a very easy concept to grasp; free will is the one value he wants to protect above all.

Could be done, by an omnipotent god, without innocents suffering. Ergo, your god is at most omnipotent or benevolent. Certainly not both.
Let's check what it was I thanked you for:

thank you for disproving the Christian omnipotent benevolent god!

Hm, why do I feel we're going in circles here, with you confirming this again and again?

It is up to ourselves to alleviate suffering in this world, as it's compatible with our free will. The law and government give us protection from eachother; God need not add himself to it.

Indeed! it is entirely up to us! And because there is no Omnipotent benevolent god, as you keep making clear, you now hold exactly the same position I started with. I guess this means we can close this debate, thank you

 

[Lone Wolf]

wrong - ever seen a baby born of a chain-smoker? They go through withdrawal from their first moment after birth. And your god lets that happen so that the mother can exercise her free will?

That is the most sadistic thing I can imagine.

But hey, why stop there, let's look at other horrible things that happen to unborns that have nothing to do with the exercise of free will by anyone. How about all the various bad things that can lead to Siamese twins to die in untero? That's quite painful...... oh, but your god restrains himself - for what purpose exactly? So that innocents suffer?

Babies go to Heaven. It's all right.

 

[carlosMM]

Babies go to Heaven. It's all right.

any proof?

 

[Lone Wolf]

any proof?

Well, we are talking about an entity who is unproven in the first place.

 

[carlosMM]

Well, we are talking about an entity who is unproven in the first place.

indeed - but this thread is about evidence for its/his/her/their action(s), thus I'd at least like to see some evidence for such claims