EVOLUTION vs CREATIONISM

[Michael]

Lastly, none of this has to do with the FACT of the process of evolution.

 

[Cris]

Norsefire,

However, as to the universe, again how is it logical that there is a universe if there was no creator?

Using your attempt at logic ask the next question. How is it logical that there is a creator if there is no creator of the creator. Your premise is that everything must have an origin and propsoe the cretor concept as a solution but you can't have it both ways. If everything must have an origin then that includes creators, and that leads us to an impossible infinite regression.

Where did existence come from?

Why must it have come from anywhere?

How do you know we exist?

I think, therefore I am. The question was answered centuries ago.

Where did something originate?

Why must everything have an origin. From physics we see that nothing is created or destroyed. Why suggest otherwise?

Why do we exist? The only logical conclusion is a Creator.

Non sequitur. The creator concept answers nothing.

 

[Saquist]

Obviously the question then becomes who (or whom) created the Creator. Who created that creator... ad infinitum

OR, perhaps you would like to stop at the first Creator, for which we have no evidence for? I mean, really, this IS the predominate mythological tale. One or One Set of Creators (I'm thinking Ame-no-Minaka-Nushi-no-Mikoto the Japanese Creator). Not to many people bother to question their origin - it's a given.

All was a chaos, unimaginably limitless and without definite shape or form. Eon followed eon: then, lo! out of this boundless, shapeless mass something light and transparent rose up and formed the heaven. This was the Plain of High Heaven, in which materialized a deity called Ame-no-Minaka-Nushi-no-Mikoto (the Deity-of-the-August-Center-of-Heaven). Next the heavens gave birth to a deity named Takami-Musubi-no-Mikoto (the High-August-Producing-Wondrous-Deity), followed by a third called Kammi-Musubi-no-Mikoto (the Divine-Producing-Wondrous-Deity). These three divine beings are called the Three Creating Deities.


So, why not just stop at the This is the Universe page? No need to compound things by adding three creators huh? Wouldn't you agree?

Also, the Universe can be eternal.
The Universe may have exited in a different form and what we see as a "beginning" is simply the beginning of the Universe as it is now.

Michael

I see. The creator's creator.
Why is the assumption that the creator has a creator more logical than a creator with out a creator?

just my perspective of course
When speaking of Origin it seems logical to postulate we are speaking in terms of one. Infinite origins does not seem to be...the object of the search.

Cause and effect is universal but this turns out to be a radical assumption when speaking of that which is not of this universe.

Ohwell...Thank you for the response.

 

[Michael]

- the postulation was that to make sense of reality there needs to be a creator.
- my point is this doesn't do anything accept move the question now, from something real that we have evidence for, namely the universe, to a creator - which we have no evidence for.
- now I ask, how did the creator come to be?
Typical response:
A) it was created.
B) it always existed.

So
If it was created, who created it's creator.
If it always existed
a) Suppose it did create the Universe - My next question is - Does it now need to exist? as there is no evidence for it's existence do we agree it doesn't exist now? Perhaps in this theory the "creator" made the universe and then, itself, ceased to exist.
b) If one is perfectly happy to live with the notion of something always existing, then lets not move from the realm of reality and agree that reality has always exited. done. again, no need of a present creator.

Michael

 

[Saquist]

"Suppose it did create the Universe"
"does it now need to exist?"
"as there is no evidence for it's existence do we agree it doesn't exist now?

I don't understand. What does evidence have to do with God?

Why would it want to cease to exist?

"lets not move from the realm of reality and agree that reality ahs always "existed"

What does this mean? "Let's not move from the realm of reality"
I think you're making unnecessary paradoxes.

 

[Myles]

Saquist,

For whatever reason, you reject evolution in favour of creationism. You have said as much in an earlier post (117 ) on this thread. Given the wealth of evidence to support evolution, what can you offer to support creationism ? Try looking at the problem this way.

There are three choices, not two. We can believe in evolution, we can believe in creationism or we can say we do not know. As you reject evolution , why have you opted for creationism as opposed to "don't know"?

Logically, you should opt for don't know unless you have a weight of evidence to support creationism, at least as compelling as that in favour of evolution. So, what evidence can you adduce to support creation ?

 

[Myles]

Why must a creator have a creator and why it is logical to say so.

The notion that the universe must have had a beginning and that this entails the existence of a creator is a fallacy. It's based on the notion that nothing can exist that has not been created.It is then said to follow that there must be a creator

As the argument is based on the premise that everything that exists was created, so the logical conclusion must be that the creator must have a creator. This leads to an infinite regress. An attempt to avoid this is to say that the creator must always have existed but that makes no more sense than to say that the universe has always existed.

Why not settle for, the question has yet to be answered. This strikes me as the only intelligent position.

 

[Sarkus]

For those who fail to distinguish between the FACT of evolution and the many THEORIES of the evolutionary process (Saquist and others)... consider this...

A car is seen at point A.
The next day it is seen at point B.
This is the FACT of movement (the car has moved from point A to point B, and neither the end point nor the start point can be disputed).

Noone is yet sure how it moved from A to B.
This is the THEORY of movement. (It could have rolled on its wheels, it could have teleported etc...)


Likewise with evolution...

We know there was a species A and no species B.
We know there is now a species B that shares similar traits to species A (neither the end nor start point can be disputed).
This is the FACT of evolution.

We do not yet know HOW the species A gave rise to species B.
The HOW relates to the THEORY of evolution.


Now... do you see the difference between what is the FACT of evolution, and what are the THEORIES of evolution.
Do not confuse the two.

 

[Sarkus]

I don't understand. What does evidence have to do with God?

What indeed.

 

[clusteringflux]

Why not settle for, the question has yet to be answered. This strikes me as the only intelligent position.

Because everyone has a their own model that they are testing against everyone else's.
I think that you have touched on something very important about this debate and that is that no matter which side you're on, claiming with total confidence that yours is the correct opinion just disqualifies you among people who know it is a question yet without an answer.

Some sciences have set out to disprove God but it seems to be having the reverse effect on the population that is not easily lead. I would say the same for fundamental theists.

 

[Yorda]

As the argument is based on the premise that everything that exists was created, so the logical conclusion must be that the creator must have a creator. This leads to an infinite regress.

the reason that god can have existed forever is that god is not material. the universe has to be created because it is an effect, and every effect needs a cause. god is not an effect, he is the cause, so he doesn't need to be caused.

Why not settle for, the question has yet to be answered.

a question can't really be answered because every answer creates a new question.

Logically, you should opt for don't know unless you have a weight of evidence to support creationism,

i don't know, so i invented the magical entity god who created everything... and the problem was solved.

Where did existence come from?

existence doesn't need to be created because even if nothing exists, something exists.

Where did something originate?

from nothing.

Obviously the question then becomes who (or whom) created the Creator. Who created that creator... ad infinitum

by definition, the creator of everything can't have a creator, otherwise it would not BE the creator of everything.

No need to compound things by adding three creators huh? Wouldn't you agree?

if you know what the trinity is, you know that it is real.

Once people in Greece asked why lightening shot down from the sky. The obvious answer was a God named Zeus.

and after many thousand years later we still don't know what causes it.

Will we ever understand the origin of the Universe?

the people who wrote the ancient myths understood it long ago.

read their answer in blue text here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1779601&postcount=160

I think, therefore I am. The question was answered centuries ago.

i eat pie, therefore i am... maybe you only think you think.

 

[Myles]

and after many thousand years later we still don't know what causes it.



the people who wrote the ancient myths understood it long ago.

read their answer in blue text here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1779601&postcount=160



the reason that god can have existed forever is that god is not material. the universe has to be created because it is an effect, and every effect needs a cause. god is not an effect, he is the cause, so he doesn't need to be caused.



a question can't really be answered because every answer creates a new question.



i don't know, so i invented the magical entity god who created everything... and the problem was solved.



existence doesn't need to be created because even if nothing exists, something exists.



from nothing.



by definition, the creator of everything can't have a creator, otherwise it would not BE the creator of everything.



if you know what the trinity is, you know that it is real.



i eat pie, therefore i am... maybe you only think you think.

I have not said some of the things you have attributed to me.To say we don't know the cause of lightening shows you have no understanding of science whatever. This explains you willingness to involve yourelf in bigger issues; it's because you don't know what we are talking about.

You posit the existence of a creator on no better grounds than your inabilityto imagine a universe existing without one. Having commited yourself to the view that everything must have been created, you claim the creator is an exception . Why ? Because it suits your purpose. You can offer no evidence, so why not agree that we do not know ?

 

[Saquist]

For those who fail to distinguish between the FACT of evolution and the many THEORIES of the evolutionary process (Saquist and others)... consider this...

A car is seen at point A.
The next day it is seen at point B.
This is the FACT of movement (the car has moved from point A to point B, and neither the end point nor the start point can be disputed).

Noone is yet sure how it moved from A to B.
This is the THEORY of movement. (It could have rolled on its wheels, it could have teleported etc...)


Likewise with evolution...

We know there was a species A and no species B.
We know there is now a species B that shares similar traits to species A (neither the end nor start point can be disputed).
This is the FACT of evolution.

We do not yet know HOW the species A gave rise to species B.
The HOW relates to the THEORY of evolution.


Now... do you see the difference between what is the FACT of evolution, and what are the THEORIES of evolution.
Do not confuse the two.

Logically If I see a car (item one) at point "A"
And then the next day I see (item one) at point "B"
Yes that is movement.
We don't know how it moved but it's new position is obvious..

HOWEVER.

Logically If I see a car (item one) at point "A"
And then the next day I see a truck (item two) at point "B"
One can not logicaly conclude (item B) was previously (item A) moved to point "B"

Logicaly untill you've observed the change you've seen on the generational level transform a creature from A to Z then the premise is theoretical and only theoretical.

I can understand if you think it's a "fact" but untill direct observation confirms the theory it remains speculatioin. Nothing will change that except an experiment which induces such a transformation or viewing it's natural occurence. Otherwise we're skipping a critical step in the Scientific Method.

What indeed.

That fits my understanding spatialy.
There is no physical connection to follow or track God. No bloodhound or private eye or scientific revelation is going to be able to isolate evidence of his existence. A creator by nature would have zero connection to the creation except for one all important connection. Communication. If the Bible represents that communication then it is the only tangible evidence to his existence.

So I mean what I say. What does evidence have to do with God? It's a fallacy of reasoning to presume the same rules and laws apply outside this universe. As humans we're pretty stubborn on the whole cause and effect issue. This would be one of those issues from where ignorance or even stupidity is invovled because some make illogical assumptions.

 

[spidergoat]

Direct observation of the fossil evidence, taking into account the accuracy of modern dating techniques, proves that new species come from older ones. This is confirmed by the taxonomy of fossil skeletons. Although one would have to acknowledge a small degree of uncertainty, the general principle is so likely that to discount evolution would be illogical.

 

[iceaura]

Well, there is a series of events recorded in the rocks - where some kinds of animals were around, and then they weren't and other kinds were, in patterns repeated all over the world.

And then there is a distribution of living beings, where certain kinds are found in certain places and not in others, and certain kinds are associated by feature and correlated with distribution, and not others, in patterns repeated all over the world.

And these patterns are the record of the fact of evolution, but that was not recognised for a long time. One reason it was not recognised is that it represented a dramatic change in the description of the factual reality of the world. Such a change is difficult to accept, and without a theory to explain it a fact can be denied more easily by those sufficiently motivated.

Ever since Darwin, the fact of evolution has been much harder to deny and much easier to recognise from its record, because there has been a theory to account for it and explain it. The theory and the fact it explains are not the same, but they are closely associated in history and human thought.

 

[Saquist]

Direct observation of the fossil evidence, taking into account the accuracy of modern dating techniques, proves that new species come from older ones. This is confirmed by the taxonomy of fossil skeletons. Although one would have to acknowledge a small degree of uncertainty, the general principle is so likely that to discount evolution would be illogical.

I can not agree.
such a visual inspection is flawed and has frequently lead to misconception even today assuming that visual appearence ares marks of relation. DNA shows that very very often animals may look alike but have distant genetic similarity. You can put your bones in that baske but that is not proof. It's specuations which is what evolution is frankly mostly based on. A little observation and ALOT speculation.

I admit some of the experiments have been impressive yet...they've also shown for some reason this process is beyond our ability to manipulate effectively if it's real and that's the clue that there are boundaries in effect that the evolutionary theory doesn't recongnize. Rather than recognize hose difficulties they persist with the theory instead of using the continual failure to revise their perception. That's not surprising if you're assuming that the theory is right and there are no other choices and everyone has been taught to think in such a way instead of out side the box.

 

[spidergoat]

The proper term is not speculation, but deduction. Animals may look alike, but the bones don't lie. This is because evolution doesn't make anything new, it can only alter what went before. There is no alternative theory with the same kind of evidence to support it. Certainly creationism is not supported by the fossil record.

 

[Norsefire]

Norsefire,

Using your attempt at logic ask the next question. How is it logical that there is a creator if there is no creator of the creator. Your premise is that everything must have an origin and propsoe the cretor concept as a solution but you can't have it both ways. If everything must have an origin then that includes creators, and that leads us to an impossible infinite regression.

Why must it have come from anywhere?

I think, therefore I am. The question was answered centuries ago.

Why must everything have an origin. From physics we see that nothing is created or destroyed. Why suggest otherwise?

Non sequitur. The creator concept answers nothing.

That is illogical. Why is there existence, then, in the middle of nothingness, universes, what are universes? How do we measure existence? If it was always there, WHY? What the hell is this? What is a mind? Why can I comprehend this? Does it exist?

These questions cannot be answered except through a creator


As for "who created the Creator", the Creator would obviously not be on the same plane of existence as we Humans are, and therefore it is plausible that He has His ways.

Now, even if, it still is simply amazing that we have existence, because it just doesn't make sense. Why is there existence?

 

[Saquist]

synonyms asides it's not fool proof. In fact it's fool prone. Things have been proven over and over and over again that things are not always what they seem especially when it comes to genetics.

I don't know about creationism
But the fossil record supports creation far better than it supports evolution.



-Prediction of the Creation Model
Life comes only from previous: Which has a creator.

- Fossils should show:
1: complex forms suddently appearing in great variety
2 gaps separating maor kinds life: no linking forms.

-No new kinds gradulaly appearing: no incomplete bones or organs, but all parts completely formed

-Mutations are harmful

-Civilization
related with man and inherently complex

-Language
related with man and inherently complex

-Man appears 6,000 years ago


The Real World
Life comes from life

Fossils show sudden appearances of complex life in great variety
each new kind seperate from previous kinds no linking forms

New kinds gradualy appearing.

Mutations harmful

Civilization shows up with that of Man
same with Lanauage

and the oldest writings are about 5,000 years old.

Now you'll debate mutations despite the reality that they rarely do anything good at all.
You'll debate what the fossil record says and redifine what a transisitional fossils is...even to those that say EVERY fossil is a transitional fossil. Yet the truth is the idea of creation fits easily with what we're observing in the Earth today.

And the debate that the DNA's 99.9 percent replication is not a limitation to adaptation.

If you don't recognize the limits then of course you think adapation has a green light. If you don't recognize the limits of course you'll continue to argue on the process of evolution...of course experimentation sucess to manipulate this pliability will meet with little sucess.

The idea of uniformitarianism is a dogmatic ideology that has impacted everything from geology, biology and climate study. If you assume that everything happend a long time ago and gradualy you're not making room for the impact of cataclysmic events on the Earth. Slowly uniformitarianist have been accepting that there is evidence of large scale change on the Earth but they distance it into the millions and hundreds of thousands of years.

 

[Cris]

Norsefire,

Why is there existence,

Why must there be a reason?

How do we measure existence?

Self awareness is sufficient to note that existence is real.

If it was always there, WHY?

Why must there be a reason?

What is a mind?

A group of intricate cooperative neural networks.

Why can I comprehend this?

Your neural networks have that capability.

Does it exist?

Yes as a label for those neural networks that make it possible.

These questions cannot be answered except through a creator

Only if we assume there has to be a purpose to everything and there is no reason to assert that anything needs a purpose and hence no reason to reach a conclusion that a creator is a necessity.

As far as we can see the universe serves no purpose, it simply IS.

As for "who created the Creator", the Creator would obviously not be on the same plane of existence as we Humans are, and therefore it is plausible that He has His ways.

A fantasy to explain a fantasy, and answers nothing.

Now, even if, it still is simply amazing that we have existence, because it just doesn't make sense. Why is there existence?

Why must there be a reason?