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

[Perfection]

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.

Well why must there be a cause at all?

But that's really getting tangental, I don't particularly care what you view about the very first moments of the universe, what I do care is about people harping on scientists who have figured out what has happened afterwords.

 

[bgast1]

Well why must there be a cause at all?

But that's really getting tangental, I don't particularly care what you view about the very first moments of the universe, what I do care is about people harping on scientists who have figured out what has happened afterwords.

Maybe I am not understanding the purpose of your thread. If I understand the purpose correctly, you are saying that you want to debunk creationism. You cannot KO creationism if you cannot explain the cause. There are a whole slew of extremely credible scientists out there who have come to the conclusion that the evidence points to design, rather than materialism, Darwinism.

 

[Perfection]

Maybe I am not understanding the purpose of your thread. If I understand the purpose correctly, you are saying that you want to debunk creationism.

My two claims are clearly stated in the first post of the thread.

You cannot KO creationism if you cannot explain the cause.

Are you refering to philosophical creationism that doesn't contradict with evolution by natural slection? And the cause of what? The universe? The planet? Life? Please be more specefic

There are a whole slew of extremely credible scientists out there who have come to the conclusion that the evidence points to design, rather than materialism, Darwinism.

The number scientists in support of evolutionary theory is massively greater then those who support Creationism.

 

[warpus]

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.

The inability to explain the question of the first cause (or a lack of one) does not immediatelly imply that the supernatural has to be involved. Scientists have not answered the question of "How did the Universe get here?" because they don't know.

It is a valid answer to the question. If you don't know something, you accept it. You say "I don't know". You don't assume that the supernatural has to be involved simply becuase you can't explain an event.

If you think that science's inability to answer the question of the origins of the Universe is a huge problem, then you must also think that the inability of Creationists to explain the origins of God is a huge problem too. The difference is that men of science say "We don't know", whereas creationists say "It doesn't matter", and move on to the next question, assuming that the supernatural has to be involved. That simply defies logic.

Creationism and Evolution both, in fact, run afoul of the same (alleged) failure. How did life get to where it is now?

Evolution only explains how we got here, assuming that the beginnings of life were present. The "How did life get started?" part is an entirely different question, with entirely different answers. You're asking science to provide an answer to the life, the universe, and everything, in one swoop.

That's not how it works.

You discover things in steps. It took us a while, but we eventually figured out that the Earth is round. Then we figured out that the Earth orbits the Sun. Then we figured out that natural selection has been driving evolution on this planet. Someday we may figure out how life got started on this planet, and how the Universe came into being.. but you can't expect all the answers to be provided all at once. You've got to be patient.

We will always have questions. You answer one question and end up with 1 answer and 3 new questions. You can't expect for science to answer everything.

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.

You're simply introducing the supernatural to answer the remaining questions about the Universe & life that you have. "We don't know" is a perfectly valid answer. It might not feel as nice as having all the answers, but it's just reality.

EDIT: We don't know who killed JFK. Does a theistic explanation (ie. God killed JFK) make more sense than saying "We don't know" ?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I think that you don't understand the terms of the debate here. It is not necessary to completely reject a theistic explanation, in the sense that you believe God has directed evolution. This is no more scientifically valid than saying that we don't know how it happened, but then it is not supposed to be scientific. I agree with the two claims that Perf has said are the purpose of this thread: that evolution by natural selection is a valid scientific theory, and that Creationism is not a valid scientific theory. My belief in God is not - and is not supposed to be - scientific, or even relatled to science. I can accept those claims without rejecting the role of God, but I cannot say that God is "necessary" for evolution, in a scientifically verifiable way.

 

[carlosMM]

What evidence is there at all for creationism?

Please, bgast, will you answer this first?

 

[carlosMM]

Xanikk999 there is no reason for you to be so hostile.

he is not hostile.

Please go find a good book about logic. Then apply that to your religion. Then come back - you'll have to admit that the normal rules of logic that govern life except for religion are not employed for religion.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I am perfectly willing to admit that my faith, at least, is not governed by the rules of logic. I believe that this is becasue God is above logic (which I think is a human convention), but it does not bother me to say that my religion is inherently non-logical.

 

[carlosMM]

No that isn't what I said at all. My point is why can't they both work?

because Creationism a priori removes the conditions that would be necessary for it to work: logic and reason!

 

[Smidlee]

logic and reason!

These are the exact reasons why I reject Darwinism. They go against both logic and reason.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

These are the exact reasons why I reject Darwinism. They go against both logic and reason.

How so? Explain to me why that statement makes sense. Because Darwinism was derived using the same scientific method that has given us most of what we call science.

 

[carlosMM]

These are the exact reasons why I reject Darwinism. They go against both logic and reason.

Each and every time someone tries to debate YOUR logic and YOUR reason, you rush off into theology or leave the thread in a hurry.

Now why would that be?

 

[BasketCase]

Maybe for the same reason you do it.

 

[Xanikk999]

These are the exact reasons why I reject Darwinism. They go against both logic and reason.

Ummm ok. From that comment i think you need to open up a college level biology text book and read the chapters on evolution and speciation..

 

[Xanikk999]

Funny thing is i beileve if most people actually knew how evolution works and read about it they would find it very beileveable.

 

[BasketCase]

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.

This is only true if the Big Bang was in fact the beginning of time.

Maybe it wasn't. Scientists say that the Big Bang might as well be the beginning of time from our rather limited viewpoint. Though the old theory that the Big Bang was a singularity has recently been called into question.

Was the Big Bang really the beginning? Did it have a cause or not? Or was the Big Bang simply a random "hiccup" of positive energy caused by the Uncertainty Principle (according to which, positive and negative virtual particles are spontaneously popping into existence--and then annihilating with each other microseconds later--all around us at this very moment)?

I think the question of what got the Big Bang going is perfectly askable.

 

[Sidhe]

This is only true if the Big Bang was in fact the beginning of time.

Maybe it wasn't. Scientists say that the Big Bang might as well be the beginning of time from our rather limited viewpoint. Though the old theory that the Big Bang was a singularity has recently been called into question.

Was the Big Bang really the beginning? Did it have a cause or not? Or was the Big Bang simply a random "hiccup" of positive energy caused by the Uncertainty Principle (according to which, positive and negative virtual particles are spontaneously popping into existence--and then annihilating with each other microseconds later--all around us at this very moment)?

I think the question of what got the Big Bang going is perfectly askable.

There are many physics theories that deny a big bang, they are out there they are worth looking into, but how this applys to evolution is beyond the remit of this thread, start yor own discourse on how the universe began, it seems you're merely polluting this thread. Oh let's just go string or M theory like it applies to evolution. Back it up to a physics thread, we're not talking the overarching principles here, if you want that: face a physics thread, I'll tell you the score. Aye buya kasha. f'real. right

 

[bgast1]

There are many physics theories that deny a big bang, they are out there they are worth looking into, but how this applys to evolution is beyond the remit of this thread, start yor own discourse on how the universe began, it seems you're merely polluting this thread. Oh let's just go string or M theory like it applies to evolution. Back it up to a physics thread, we're not talking the overarching principles here, if you want that: face a physics thread, I'll tell you the score. Aye buya kasha. f'real. right

The cause of the universe is critical to Creationism. Do you feel that this thread should only deal with evolution. Science is about more than evolution.

Someone up above said something about opening up a biology book. If that book teaches things that even non-theistic scientists don't agree on, but just leaves it in there for who knows whatever reason, then can we deduce that the whole of what it teaches is suspect?

I have come to the conclusion that Creationism does not have even the remotest chance in being accepted in this thread. Not because it is not valid, but because athiests, agnostics would rather worship science as a religion, than conclude that there is the remotest chance that an intelligence that transcends time, and space could be involved.

It certainly is true, that neither science nor creationists will ever be able to prove this either way. All the best we can do is draw conclusions based upon the evidence.

What happens, however, is that once you conclude that an intelligence is behind it all, it also leads to different interpretations of the evidence.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but another observation that I have made is that any scientist, regardless of his education, amount of degrees they have earned, or how much knowledge they may have, because they believe in God, or are Christians are automatically subject to a great deal of character assassination by the rest of the scientific community. I am quite aware that there are some seemingly crackheads out there on both sides of the fence. They deserve it. But there are some very credible scientists out there who believe in God.

Also, what I have observed is that unless one believes in God, creationism doesn't matter anyway.

Another observation that I have made is that most people here on this thread seem to think that in order to be a creationist, you need to hold to a young earth theory. That simply is not true. I am a creationist as you all know by now, and I do not hold to a young earth theory.

I don't hold to a theistic evolutionary position either, because as I understand it, the evolutionary process by definition is undirected. If that is the case, then by definition, it automatically rules out that any sort of a supernatural deity could have been involved.

Now to conclude my statements here, I don't honestly see how anything productive can come out of this thread, other than to have most of you all conclude that you are the victors in this whole debate. This of course is not true but if makes you all feel good that is fine with me. I don't believe any of you are willing to give up your prejudices very easily anymore that I am willing to change mine. You all state that belief in God makes no sense, it is not logical. So I will leave it at this, in the end we will all know who was right and who was wrong.

So, let me ask you, is it necessary to continue this conversation or do we sit back and let Perfection and the rest of you declare victory? I honestly can't see this going anywhere productive.

 

[Perfection]

The cause of the universe is critical to Creationism. Do you feel that this thread should only deal with evolution. Science is about more than evolution.

The thread revolves around two claims:
1. Evolution is a valid scientific claim
2. Creationism is not a valid scientific claim
This is highlighted in the first post of the thread (I advise that you read it)
I do allow discussion of big bang theory and abiogenesis, but I don't feel that they should be the focus of the thread,

Someone up above said something about opening up a biology book. If that book teaches things that even non-theistic scientists don't agree on, but just leaves it in there for who knows whatever reason, then can we deduce that the whole of what it teaches is suspect?

Are you implying that evolutionary theory has significant secular detractors?

I have come to the conclusion that Creationism does not have even the remotest chance in being accepted in this thread. Not because it is not valid, but because athiests, agnostics would rather worship science as a religion, than conclude that there is the remotest chance that an intelligence that transcends time, and space could be involved.

We are arguing from the metric of science. If you wish to argue from a philosophical/religious standpoint, check out Eran's thread
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=181085

It certainly is true, that neither science nor creationists will ever be able to prove this either way. All the best we can do is draw conclusions based upon the evidence.

Do you contend that there is signifcant evidence for Creationism, if so please do share it.

What happens, however, is that once you conclude that an intelligence is behind it all, it also leads to different interpretations of the evidence.

I find that such interpretations have limited true explintory and predictive power, that is the stuff that makes evolution such a wonderful and useful theory

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but another observation that I have made is that any scientist, regardless of his education, amount of degrees they have earned, or how much knowledge they may have, because they believe in God, or are Christians are automatically subject to a great deal of character assassination by the rest of the scientific community. I am quite aware that there are some seemingly crackheads out there on both sides of the fence. They deserve it. But there are some very credible scientists out there who believe in God.

Belief in God is different from belief in an antievolutionary form of creationism. Do not equate the two. The former is accepted by most scientists the later not.

Also, what I have observed is that unless one believes in God, creationism doesn't matter anyway.

Then why did I create such a thread?

Another observation that I have made is that most people here on this thread seem to think that in order to be a creationist, you need to hold to a young earth theory. That simply is not true. I am a creationist as you all know by now, and I do not hold to a young earth theory.

I have noted that on the first page

I don't hold to a theistic evolutionary position either, because as I understand it, the evolutionary process by definition is undirected. If that is the case, then by definition, it automatically rules out that any sort of a supernatural deity could have been involved.

Evolution is not undirected. It's directed by natural selection (differential reprductive sucess).

Now to conclude my statements here, I don't honestly see how anything productive can come out of this thread, other than to have most of you all conclude that you are the victors in this whole debate. This of course is not true but if makes you all feel good that is fine with me. I don't believe any of you are willing to give up your prejudices very easily anymore that I am willing to change mine. You all state that belief in God makes no sense, it is not logical. So I will leave it at this, in the end we will all know who was right and who was wrong.

So, let me ask you, is it necessary to continue this conversation or do we sit back and let Perfection and the rest of you declare victory? I honestly can't see this going anywhere productive.

Well, you're free to leave or post whenever you please. If you feel that the ideas exchanged here are not worth the effort then you may leave.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I think the question of what got the Big Bang going is perfectly askable.

It only makes sense under certain classes of non-standard theories.