The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Four: The Genesis of Ire!

[Xanikk999]

Here's my point. But first let me ask. Is this thread about saying that God, did not do it? That all of this just happened out of nothing? I don't get it. Creationism is a valid scientific theory, all Creationism does is take all of the evidence available, and then infers a different conclusion, based upon the evidence, than materialists.

Science can take us to the First Event. But it can't take us to the First Cause. The sudden emergence of matter, space, time, and energy points to the need for some kind of trancendence. The world is much more complicated than to explain it merely by science. Accepting the supernatural gives us a springboard to understand the mystery of existence. For this reason creationism is as valid of a theory as materialism.

What evidence is there at all for creationism?

All modern creationism does is distorts scientific evidence and create a myth with no basis.

There is just no justifying creationism.

 

[bgast1]

Creationism examines the exact same evidence that others do. Those who are serious scientists neither distort the evidence or create a myth. You did not answer the question as to the First Cause. When science can answer the question as to the first cause without resorting to and intelligence behind it, then they can make a valid claim that creationism has no basis. They cannot do so, at least not satisfactorily to me and whole host of other serious heavy hitters in the scientific community far more intelligent than myself and most of us here on this forum. Even Albert Einstein could not do so, because he was so irritated with where his conclusions were taking him, he introduced a fudge factor into his theory of General Relativity. It did not hold up for long.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

You are confusing creationism - the idea that God created the universe, and all life on earth - with Creationism, the idea that it was done according to the description of Genesis 1, or that each species was created individually, or that it was done in the last several thousand years. I believe in the first, as a religious idea, but reject the second because the evidence of biology, paleontology, and geology suggest otherwise. Hovind and Gish et al are not just saying God created the world, they are saying it was done in a manner that clearly it wasn't.

 

[bgast1]

You are confusing creationism - the idea that God created the universe, and all life on earth - with Creationism, the idea that it was done according to the description of Genesis 1, or that each species was created individually, or that it was done in the last several thousand years. I believe in the first, as a religious idea, but reject the second because the evidence of biology, paleontology, and geology suggest otherwise. Hovind and Gish et al are not just saying God created the world, they are saying it was done in a manner that clearly it wasn't.

Eran--I don't think so. I think the Creationist/Materialist argument is about whether God did it at all. Science from a materialist point of view attempts to exclude a designer completely. The Genesis 1 account requires Biblical interpretation, philosophy and all sorts of things to come into play. Those of us who believe in God, cannot have it both ways. I personally believe that the evidence of biology, palentology, geology, cosmology all point to a designer. I am not at all invoking Hovind, or Gish in my conclusions at all. Neither am I even in this over the dispute over the age of the earth. The question about Creationism still goes to First Cause. If you cannot resolve this, you cannot resolve the Genesis account. There is no foundation from which to proceed beyond that. If you resolve, whether the universe was created or just appeared out of nothing then you can proceed to the other evidence. My conversation here is mostly directed athiests at this point. I am trying to understand how they answer the First Causequestion.

 

[Xanikk999]

Eran--I don't think so. I think the Creationist/Materialist argument is about whether God did it at all. Science from a materialist point of view attempts to exclude a designer completely. The Genesis 1 account requires Biblical interpretation, philosophy and all sorts of things to come into play. Those of us who believe in God, cannot have it both ways. I personally believe that the evidence of biology, palentology, geology, cosmology all point to a designer. I am not at all invoking Hovind, or Gish in my conclusions at all. Neither am I even in this over the dispute over the age of the earth. The question about Creationism still goes to First Cause. If you cannot resolve this, you cannot resolve the Genesis account. There is no foundation from which to proceed beyond that. If you resolve, whether the universe was created or just appeared out of nothing then you can proceed to the other evidence. My conversation here is mostly directed athiests at this point. I am trying to understand how they answer the First Cause /B]question.

Of course science tries to explain things without a creator.
Science is about testing theories and logic.

Religion is neither of those.

 

[nc-1701]

"First cause is irrelavent"

It can not be tested and has no effect on our current world. Besides whatever the first cause is you have already given up and said evolution is correct.

 

[bgast1]

Of course science tries to explain things without a creator.
Science is about testing theories and logic.

Religion is neither of those.

Xanikk999 there is no reason for you to be so hostile. I have not attacked you or your sense of logic in any way shape or form. I haven't invoked religion here. I submit, Creationism fits quite logically into the scientific discoveries that have been made.

 

[bgast1]

"First cause is irrelavent"

It can not be tested and has no effect on our current world. Besides whatever the first cause is you have already given up and said evolution is correct.

I personally believe that science actually supports a thiestic approach. I personally believe that only thiesm can provide an intellectually satisfying causual explanation for the evidences that have come to light in say the last 50 years or so.

First Cause is completely relevant. If it is true that there is a beginning to the universe, as modern cosmologists now agree, then this implies a cause that transcends the universe. If the laws of physics are fine-tuned to permit life, as contemporary physicists are discovering, then perhaps there is a designer that fine-tuned them. If there is information in the cell, as molecular biology shows, then this suggests intelligent design. To get life going in the first place would have required biological information; the implications point beyond the material realm to a prior intelligent cause.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I personally believe that science actually supports a thiestic approach. I personally believe that only thiesm can provide an intellectually satisfying causual explanation for the evidences that have come to light in say the last 50 years or so.

What you believe is of no consequence. What matters is if you can show anything to be probable or necessary.

First Cause is completely relevant. If it is true that there is a beginning to the universe, as modern cosmologists now agree, then this implies a cause that transcends the universe.

Causality is a dangerous concept - it makes you think classically. No "cause" in the ordinary sense can apply to the beginning of time, and QM tells us that causes are only approximations anyway.

If the laws of physics are fine-tuned to permit life, as contemporary physicists are discovering, then perhaps there is a designer that fine-tuned them.

Or perhaps it's just the anthropic principle in action. Or we live in a multiverse providing all possible permutations of constants, perhaps even with Smolinian "cosmic darwinism" in action. Or perhaps there's some logical reason the universe has to be this way. At the time being, we can only speculate.

If there is information in the cell, as molecular biology shows, then this suggests intelligent design. To get life going in the first place would have required biological information; the implications point beyond the material realm to a prior intelligent cause.

Word salad.

 

[bgast1]

What you believe is of no consequence. What matters is if you can show anything to be probable or necessary.
Well then, let me restate. Neither can materialists show anything more probable than intelligent design either, without going to overlapping concepts as religion or philosophy. Science alone, simpley cannot provide the answers.


Causality is a dangerous concept - it makes you think classically. No "cause" in the ordinary sense can apply to the beginning of time, and QM tells us that causes are only approximations anyway.
Please explain further. Causality is at the root of the creationism, intelligent design argument. I viewing this from the other side find pure science to be just as much of a religion, as scientists who refuse to admit that the evidence can point in a theistic direction. The fact (can I use that word) that the Big Bang theory and its accompanying theoretical underpinning in general relativity point point to a definite beginning of the universe. The fact that most scientists now believe that energy, matter, space and time had a beginning is profoundly antimaterialistic.

Or perhaps it's just the anthropic principle in action. Or we live in a multiverse providing all possible permutations of constants, perhaps even with Smolinian "cosmic darwinism" in action. Or perhaps there's some logical reason the universe has to be this way. At the time being, we can only speculate.
Yes, but if you take causality into account with the anthropic principle, it becomes incredibly difficult to ignore an intelligent designer.

I don't know how to do those quotes the way you did them previously so I just did this the best way I know how.

Question? Please elaborate on what you mean by word salad? Also what you mean by classical thinking. I'm just a regular non-scientific type that likes to read about science, and strongly believes that the scientific and religious communities do not have to be at war. No doubt most of you will disagree with me, otherwise there wouldn't be this thread in the first place, but I will say it anyway, when science and biblical teachings are correctly interpreted, they can and do support each other.

 

[ironduck]

bgast, two things:

1) No one is saying that science and religion are at war. Science does not care about religion. They deal with two different issues.

2) You confuse and mix up everything to a point where I get the feeling you're doing it on purpose. I strongly suggest you read about what science is and what a scientific theory is. Because right now you appear not to know.

Here's a starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

 

[The Last Conformist]

"Word salad" means something that's too nonsensical to merit any further response.

Please explain further. Causality is at the root of the creationism, intelligent design argument.

If so, that's a failing of creationism. QM shows that classical casuality simply does not work. When a radiactive nucleus decays, it does so for no particular cause.

("Classical", BTW, here refers to classical physics, ie. roughly everything before Planck and Einstein.)

I viewing this from the other side find pure science to be just as much of a religion, as scientists who refuse to admit that the evidence can point in a theistic direction. The fact (can I use that word) that the Big Bang theory and its accompanying theoretical underpinning in general relativity point point to a definite beginning of the universe. The fact that most scientists now believe that energy, matter, space and time had a beginning is profoundly antimaterialistic.

You might want to check out Hawking's "boundariless boundary condition". Or D-brane theory. Or recognize that you don't know what you are talking about.

Yes, but if you take causality into account with the anthropic principle, it becomes incredibly difficult to ignore an intelligent designer.

Care to explain why?

 

[BasketCase]

If so, that's a failing of creationism. QM shows that classical casuality simply does not work. When a radiactive nucleus decays, it does so for no particular cause.

You mean, no cause that we know of.

Creationism and Evolution both, in fact, run afoul of the same (alleged) failure. How did life get to where it is now? Evolution. How did evolution get started? From a lightning bolt through a methane sea on primordial Earth. How did that get started? When a chunk of matter from the Big Bang cooled down into a star and planets.

How did the Big Bang get started....?

Uuuhhhhhh......



Hmmm.....sorry, but we're not sure about that one yet.

So what? Just because we don't know what caused the Big Bang, doesn't mean that such a cause doesn't exist. Not knowing the cause doesn't invalidate the theory.

 

[The Last Conformist]

You mean, no cause that we know of.

No I don't.

Creationism and Evolution both, in fact, run afoul of the same (alleged) failure. How did life get to where it is now? Evolution. How did evolution get started? From a lightning bolt through a methane sea on primordial Earth. How did that get started? When a chunk of matter from the Big Bang cooled down into a star and planets.

How did the Big Bang get started....?

Uuuhhhhhh......



Hmmm.....sorry, but we're not sure about that one yet.

So what? Just because we don't know what caused the Big Bang, doesn't mean that such a cause doesn't exist. Not knowing the cause doesn't invalidate the theory.

This isn't even wrong.

A cause, by definition, preceeds its effect. The Big Bang, in standard Big Bang cosmology, is the beginning of time. It cannot have a cause. You're saying that just because the big bang happened, it doesn't mean the big bang happened.

 

[willemvanoranje]

Totally off-topic, but this is exactly why I think we humans need to evolve a lot more. A lot of things can't be the way we think they are right now. To us, something cannot develop out of nothing.. if evolution is true, and the big bang is true, then there is obviously something we cannot understand. Probably time. Probably time is not linear as we think..but somehow we can't see that, maybe because of limited physioligy.. I don't know.

 

[nc-1701]

Totally off-topic, but this is exactly why I think we humans need to evolve a lot more. A lot of things can't be the way we think they are right now. To us, something cannot develop out of nothing.. if evolution is true, and the big bang is true, then there is obviously something we cannot understand. Probably time. Probably time is not linear as we think..but somehow we can't see that, maybe because of limited physioligy.. I don't know.

I'm not sure that time has to be linear.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Here's my point. But first let me ask. Is this thread about saying that God, did not do it? That all of this just happened out of nothing? I don't get it. Creationism is a valid scientific theory, all Creationism does is take all of the evidence available, and then infers a different conclusion, based upon the evidence, than materialists.

Science can take us to the First Event. But it can't take us to the First Cause. The sudden emergence of matter, space, time, and energy points to the need for some kind of trancendence. The world is much more complicated than to explain it merely by science. Accepting the supernatural gives us a springboard to understand the mystery of existence. For this reason creationism is as valid of a theory as materialism.

So your point is Creationism is scientific, but Science doesn't work?

It's interesting that when you take two disingenuous arguments and combine them, the outcome is even MORE hypocritical.

 

[Perfection]

but somehow we can't see that

Well I can, quite easily too!

 

[willemvanoranje]

Well I can, quite easily too!

Well, you're of a different order of course. But us simple beings can barely realise that we are wrong.. imagining of how time works otherwise...no idea. Especially not me, I'm not a physics guy.

 

[bgast1]

So your point is Creationism is scientific, but Science doesn't work?

No that isn't what I said at all. My point is why can't they both work? I see no reason why we should eliminate a theistic conclusion when no one can explain the cause of the Big Bang. I have no problem with the evidence, I just think that a theistic explanation makes more sense than to say we don't know.