Science and Religion: Creationism/Evolution Thread

#526
#526
Daddy Gee said:
casserole... dessert.. repeat.. :salute:
eat.gif
Click to expand...

Let me teach you something here! dessert...casserole.. repeat!!! At the beginning of the dinner no one hardly ever goes to the desserts first! :rock:
 
#527
#527
This has been a great segue, from religion to banana pudding... something with seemingly no differences of opinion.
 
#528
#528
rjd970 said:
I bet the staticians didn't factor in that every miracle attributed to Jesus...to the very last one...were already in existence in folklore of the near east at the time. What's more probable, that Jesus healed the leper, brought back lazerus, was born of a virgin, resurrected after three days...and on...and on....or that they were inserted after the fact to appeal to masses for purposes of conversion?

I actually like the Bible. It isn't a bad read and there is some very worthwhile lessons in it. It has historical validity to it. I can even respect Jesus and his message. He had some important things to say about social justice and compassion. But the miracles and divinity stuff I find absolutely bogus. In all liklihood, Jesus was an important social revolutionary that openly challenged the Jewish establishment and Roman authority, and that is why he was killed. All the miracle stuff and son of God claims, even if he really believed it, is plagiarized nonsense from other popular myths at the time.
Click to expand...

Actually the statistics had nothing to do with the miracles he performed. Those things were never predicted. The things that were predicted were things that were completely out his control. For example, the city where he was born, how he would be betrayed, what would happen to his clothes. A very interesting thing is that Roman soldiers often broke the legs of people on a stake to speed up their death. The soldiers did it to the two other guys sentenced but not to Jesus. They lanced him with a spear in the side. That was foretold.

Add to it that the Gospel writers frequently referenced dates and events to give historical basis.

Also consider that Christianity at that time was the enemy of Judaism and later the Romans. Doesnt it make sense that if there was anything inaccurate or falsified they would have publicized it to discredit Christianity. There are no historical documents of this type.

So then the choice is to believe what is written or assume that some of it is real and some is fake and the two most powerful groups of the time chose to sit idlely by and let followers of their enemy perpetuate the greatest lie ever told to mankind?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#530
#530
tri_vol said:
Christianity is based on faith but not blind faith. Anyone who believes something without proof, religious or not, is an idiot. True faith could be likened to the sub-flooring in a house. You can't see it but you trust that its there. Why? Because you can follow a chain of events or standards that gives you confidence the house was built to code. If the house looks dilapidated then your faith isn't as strong.

So can you logically test for a creator? Yes. It is completely logical to accept that every inanimate, inorganic thing we see has a designer and was created (i.e. bridges, cars, forks, watches, etc.) So wouldn't the logical conclusion be that animate, organic objects which are far more complex also require a designer and creator.

How does traffic move through a city? A planner creates roadways, intersections, etc. Without the planner, there is chaos. If a traffic system requires a designer how can we assume that planets moving at millions of mph not only do not collide on a regular basis but move at precise and predictable speeds all of the time.

These are just two examples of hundreds if you want more I can give them.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

No, I don't need more examples. Frankly, they're illogical. They wouldn't work outside of our modern way of life. I doubt you would explain natural disasters by saying they have a maker or designer.
 
Last edited:
#533
#533
IPorange said:
No, I don't need more examples. Frankly, their illogical. They wouldn't work outside of our modern way of life. I doubt you would explain natural disasters by saying they have a maker or designer.
Click to expand...

How is that illogical? Natural disasters are events not objects. But since you brought it up...scientists can predict to a certain extent when and where disasters will occur or the possibility of a disaster. How can they do it? Because there are certain laws of nature. Now every other law we have was invented and put in place by an intelligent being. But more complex intricate laws of science like the rotational speed of the earth, distance from the sun, elliptical orbit just happened to occur. That is illogical and would be akin to me saying that the Bill of Rights just appeared one day.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#534
#534
tri_vol, I have found your posts to be very logical FWIW. However, and unfortunately... square peg, round hole.
 
#535
#535
tri_vol said:
How is that illogical? Natural disasters are events not objects. But since you brought it up...scientists can predict to a certain extent when and where disasters will occur or the possibility of a disaster. How can they do it? Because there are certain laws of nature. Now every other law we have was invented and put in place by an intelligent being. But more complex intricate laws of science like the rotational speed of the earth, distance from the sun, elliptical orbit just happened to occur. That is illogical and would be akin to me saying that the Bill of Rights just appeared one day.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Eliminate human-made objects, and what's left? Certainly nothing that looks like it had to have an intelligent creator to me. I don't look at a random pebble and think that someone must have made it.

Laws, species, and the like are human constructs to better understand the world around us. Even if you don't see it that way, physics is structured in a way that leads directly away from the concept of an intelligent being being necessary for anything to exist.
 
Last edited:
#536
#536
IPorange said:
Laws, species, and the like are human constructs to better understand the world around us. Even if you don't see it that way, physics is structured in a way that leads directly away from the concept of an intelligent being being necessary for anything to exist.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This is why I think evolutionary theory is so important, and why it is such a hot debate topic. While it doesn't completely rule out the possibility of a creator or intelligent designer, it certainly makes it believable that one isn't necessary. It is the only theory where it shows mechanisms and processes where something less complex can be come something more complex by completely natural processes.
 
#537
#537
IPorange said:
Eliminate human-made objects, and what's left? Certainly nothing that looks like it had to have an intelligent creator to me. I don't look at a random pebble and think that someone must have made it.

Laws, species, and the like are human constructs to better understand the world around us. Even if you don't see it that way, physics is structured in a way that leads directly away from the concept of an intelligent being being necessary for anything to exist.
Click to expand...

If by "us" you mean those who don't believe then I understand the statement. If you mean that physics should be the catalyst for doubt in a creator then I have a problem with that statement. It is just as likely that physics is simply science starting to explain the mechanisms or effects of a deities work. It certainly isn't evidence pro or con.
 
#538
#538
KB5252 said:
If by "us" you mean those who don't believe then I understand the statement. If you mean that physics should be the catalyst for doubt in a creator then I have a problem with that statement. It is just as likely that physics is simply science starting to explain the mechanisms or effects of a deities work. It certainly isn't evidence pro or con.
Click to expand...

I understand the point, but if said deity is supposedly outside of time and our physical laws and makes supernatural miracles then he isn't really working within the mechanisms we are exploring, right?
 
#539
#539
rjd970 said:
I understand the point, but if said deity is supposedly outside of time and our physical laws and makes supernatural miracles then he isn't really working within the mechanisms we are exploring, right?
Click to expand...

I guess that would depend on how you view the deity in question, if you thought he was every thing at every time then he certainly could work within the mechanisms we are exploring, in fact he would be a part of the very thing being studied.

If you view him as some being who pops up from time to time to show us miracles throughout history who bends and breaks all the laws of nature to show his might then I agree it would seem a little silly IMO.
 
#540
#540
KB5252 said:
I guess that would depend on how you view the deity in question, if you thought he was every thing at every time then he certainly could work within the mechanisms we are exploring, in fact he would be a part of the very thing being studied.

If you view him as some being who pops up from time to time to show us miracles throughout history who bends and breaks all the laws of nature to show his might then I agree it would seem a little silly IMO.
Click to expand...

Agree.

But as to your first point, anything and everything can fit in that view, deity, God, or not. I certainly don't think it is 50/50 in that respect that one does exist.
 
#541
#541
rjd970 said:
Agree.

But as to your first point, anything and everything can fit in that view, deity, God, or not. I certainly don't think it is 50/50 in that respect that one does exist.
Click to expand...

Please expand on this further.
 
#542
#542
IPorange said:
Eliminate human-made objects, and what's left? Certainly nothing that looks like it had to have an intelligent creator to me. I don't look at a random pebble and think that someone must have made it.

Laws, species, and the like are human constructs to better understand the world around us. Even if you don't see it that way, physics is structured in a way that leads directly away from the concept of an intelligent being being necessary for anything to exist.
Click to expand...

But what is that pebble made of? Atoms with parts that move in order and have the structure to form the pebble. Structure indicates logical arrangment. Logic is a product of intelligence.

Look at the laws of physics - For example: Gravity and the Electromagnetic forces.

Electromagnetic forces are at the precise level needed. If they were weaker electrons couldn't attach to atomic nuclei. Atoms couldn't form molecules and molecules couldn't form pebbles. If they were stronger electrons would never break free and chemical reactions would not take place. Life would not exist.

This force is proportionally linked gravity. If the gravity was weaker then nuclear fusion would not happen or the sun wouldn't shine. If gravity was stronger than the stars would burn hotter and the life expectancy of the sun would be greatly reduced.

These things could've happened by chance. Yet the plausibilty would be equal to saying the Fuel Injection System on your car was randomly set.

Add to it that these laws never change. Scientists may have a mistaken view or a false premise at times but the basic laws of physics are precise. Scientists count on them to be precise. That's why we can send a rover to Mars and predict the landing spot. It's that precision which allows the universe to be studied in depth. Things that happen by chance do not follow a logical pattern.

The more you look at the universe and it's makeup it takes greater faith to believe in a chance occurence than it does intelligent design.
 
#544
#544
tri_vol said:
But what is that pebble made of? Atoms with parts that move in order and have the structure to form the pebble. Structure indicates logical arrangment. Logic is a product of intelligence.

Look at the laws of physics - For example: Gravity and the Electromagnetic forces.

Electromagnetic forces are at the precise level needed. If they were weaker electrons couldn't attach to atomic nuclei. Atoms couldn't form molecules and molecules couldn't form pebbles. If they were stronger electrons would never break free and chemical reactions would not take place. Life would not exist.

This force is proportionally linked gravity. If the gravity was weaker then nuclear fusion would not happen or the sun wouldn't shine. If gravity was stronger than the stars would burn hotter and the life expectancy of the sun would be greatly reduced.

These things could've happened by chance. Yet the plausibilty would be equal to saying the Fuel Injection System on your car was randomly set.

Add to it that these laws never change. Scientists may have a mistaken view or a false premise at times but the basic laws of physics are precise. Scientists count on them to be precise. That's why we can send a rover to Mars and predict the landing spot. It's that precision which allows the universe to be studied in depth. Things that happen by chance do not follow a logical pattern.

The more you look at the universe and it's makeup it takes greater faith to believe in a chance occurence than it does intelligent design.
Click to expand...

So, what does happen by chance? You seem to think everything in the universe is precise. So where is the "chance?"

Your argument comes down to this:

(1) Check out the world/universe. Isn't it complex?
(2) Only God could have made them so complex.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

That's weak sauce, no matter how you fluff it or how many like-minded people grin and nod.

You perceive that the universe is too complicated to have occurred on it's own. But if we look up at the sky, we perceive that the Sun goes around the Earth. We know that's not true through scientific study, for both of these perceptions.
 
#545
#545
IPorange said:
So, what does happen by chance? You seem to think everything in the universe is precise. So where is the "chance?"

Your argument comes down to this:

(1) Check out the world/universe. Isn't it complex?
(2) Only God could have made them so complex.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

That's weak sauce, no matter how you fluff it or how many like-minded people grin and nod.

You perceive that the universe is too complicated to have occurred on it's own. But if we look up at the sky, we perceive that the Sun goes around the Earth. We know that's not true through scientific study, for both of these perceptions.
Click to expand...

IP... The only "fluff" I see is in your response. Tri_Vol presented a well thought out and logical post. Your response is to talk about perceptions??? Doesn't really live up to the billing of your sig!
 
#546
#546
IBlvNTmWrk said:
IP... The only "fluff" I see is in your response. Tri_Vol presented a well thought out and logical post. Your response is to talk about perceptions??? Doesn't really live up to the billing of your sig!
Click to expand...

You are entitled to your opinion. It's very simple, though: one doesn't need magic to explain how the universe got to it's current state of complexity. This is exactly counter to his point.

It doesn't make sense to attribute laws of physics and the like to a divine being, when they are by definition inapplicable to one another. Why would they need them? We don't need a "law giver" to have the laws of physics. If the laws of physics were any different, we wouldn't exist to even know it. Furthermore, if there were a being that created everything, he/she sure took their sweet time. Why take billions of years to set up the system, when we've only been around for a couple hundred thousand years at most?

Isn't that explaining something mysterious with an even bigger mystery? And more than that, that just leaves a new problem: where did the creator come from? I mean, that would be an even MORE complex thing to have just "been." This line of reasoning isn't reasoning at all. It's just putting in new straw men based on no evidence.

You can't say "it's too complex to have formed on it's own. There must have been a creator" without flying right back into the face of the problem your original claim was addressing, given the even MORE complex nature of a creator.

The ancient Greeks struggled with this in their own mythology, which is why there are 3 or so generations of gods before the Olympian ones. Our modern Christian solution is to just ignore it and say "he's just always been"- hardly a position of logic, but one of only faith.

So please don't tell me I am the one fluffing.
 
#547
#547
I will go you one better.....You are a.......FLUFFER NUTTER!
(sorry, I am already hungry for lunch and a fluffer nutter sammich would be gooooood)
 
#548
#548
turambar85 said:
Can we have cancer without the formation of the Earth? No. Do we say, then, that science should abandon cancer research until it has an adequate cosmology? If you say so, lol.

The two areas of research are wholly distinct. One tries to determine how life got to where it is, the other tries to see how inorganic matter got to be where it is. Many Christians buy evolutionary theory. Many agnostics do as well. This is because ignorance in one subject shouldn't keep us from trying to understand another. Hell, for that matter, ignorance in a subject shouldn't keep us from investigating that subject! It is the very impetus for doing so.

The universe could have formed in any number of ways, from any number of space gods, to any number of natural causes. None of them are substitute questions or answers, though, for how life developed...or even how life came to be from inorganic matter.

If we adopted your policy, we could look at anything, throw up our hands, and say "god did it". Some of us, though, like living life outside of the dark ages.
Click to expand...

You should really check the forecast down there then. The denial of Christ as your savior is a one-way ticket to a REALLY dark place.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#549
#549
So in the same paragraph you told us not to apply the laws of physics and such to a divine being. Ok, then you say that they "divine being" (its God, in case you still weren't aware) took his sweet time and YOU didn't understand why?
God doesn't operate on a timex like me and you. He doesn't view time like us. (Your applying the laws of human schedulingLOL to a divine being, UH OH)
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top