Creationism

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Anpheus
I can't get any worse, can I?
Posts: 860
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:38 pm UTC
Location: A privileged frame of reference.

Re: Creationism

Postby Anpheus » Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:19 pm UTC

If your theory happened to be, back in the middle ages, "God makes the planets go round, god makes the lightning come from the sky, god makes the water turn to ice," then yes, finding out the natural causes for those phenomena changed your view of god. Suddenly, he's doing less things. And once all of those above things were worked out, arguments for god covered the things that we can't yet explain. "God began the universe, god causes evolution/god created life," etc.

That's the god of the gaps. God fills in all the stuff we don't know. But like I said, it's incompatible with scientific belief. Either god gives way, in which case your belief was never very strong that god did anything, or science gives way, in which case, as said on the internet: ur doin it wrong.
Spoiler:

Code: Select all

  /###\_________/###\
  |#################|
  \#################/
   |##┌         ┐##|
   |##  (¯`v´¯)  ##|
   |##  `\ ♥ /´  ##|
   |##   `\¸/´   ##|
   |##└         ┘##|
  /#################\
  |#################|
  \###/¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯\###/

User avatar
Hench
Porn, hence, Man
Posts: 498
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 4:16 pm UTC
Location: Right between my eyes
Contact:

Re: Creationism

Postby Hench » Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:20 pm UTC

opsomath wrote:Oh come now, isn't that a bit hair-splitting? If I revise my theories about the universe, it changes my view of the universe, not my view of God.

Unless your view of God is dependent on your view of the universe. Or vice versa.

But again, this discussion has no place here. Try to keep on topic.
Spoiler:
Your perceptions will not change reality, but simply color it.

User avatar
Anpheus
I can't get any worse, can I?
Posts: 860
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:38 pm UTC
Location: A privileged frame of reference.

Re: Creationism

Postby Anpheus » Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:24 pm UTC

This topic is about creationism and intelligent design, beliefs wherein a Big Man in the Sky, be that God or Yahweh or Allah, interacts with the universe we know of and alters it.

Former beliefs in the same vein were used to explain fire, lightning, storms, transformation of matter from one form to another, the location of the planets and the stars in the sky, how plants gain energy from the sun.

Though you can certainly say that you have a modern perspective of god that does not involve any interaction with the universe, you have then said "My opinion is irrelevant to this topic." You can't have it both ways. You can't have a creation god or intelligent designer and say he doesn't affect the universe. If you explain our existence as being because of god, your god has very much to do with the universe, after all, it would be a very different place if suddenly no life existed.

Please, don't try to suggest that religious beliefs aren't included in this discussion.

Edit: And I am serious, if you believe god doesn't interact with the universe, your discussion isn't necessary here. Belief in a god that doesn't affect the universe is a statement that is irrelevant to my argument against religious belief, even. When I spoke of those chains of trust, it was a key point that such a god was omnipotent and interacted with the universe. That allows every possible explanation to stem from god. But when you say that god can't interact with the universe, you're fine. You end up with a dangling link that you can't extend. I don't think it's scientific, because like I said, it's a "dangling link" in the chain, you can't go anywhere from there, you can't build anything off of it, it's just there. That just means it isn't scientific, but that doesn't mean there's any logical reason you can't believe it, because belief in it won't undermine beliefs in all the other things you believe in.
Spoiler:

Code: Select all

  /###\_________/###\
  |#################|
  \#################/
   |##┌         ┐##|
   |##  (¯`v´¯)  ##|
   |##  `\ ♥ /´  ##|
   |##   `\¸/´   ##|
   |##└         ┘##|
  /#################\
  |#################|
  \###/¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯\###/

User avatar
Hench
Porn, hence, Man
Posts: 498
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 4:16 pm UTC
Location: Right between my eyes
Contact:

Re: Creationism

Postby Hench » Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:27 pm UTC

I agree that religious beliefs are a part of the discussion of creationism but they major course of discussion has shifted from creationism to a more detailed discussion involving the nature of $deity. That is not the same as discussing creationism.
Last edited by Hench on Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Spoiler:
Your perceptions will not change reality, but simply color it.

User avatar
Anpheus
I can't get any worse, can I?
Posts: 860
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:38 pm UTC
Location: A privileged frame of reference.

Re: Creationism

Postby Anpheus » Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC

We can argue creation ad nauseum and accomplish nothing, because it boils down to, "I believe in something you can't prove and it did all this nifty whiz-bang stuff."

So instead, the argument is now, "Belief in something you can't prove and does nifty whiz-bang stuff in the universe isn't logical."

I think it's an appropriate debate here.
Spoiler:

Code: Select all

  /###\_________/###\
  |#################|
  \#################/
   |##┌         ┐##|
   |##  (¯`v´¯)  ##|
   |##  `\ ♥ /´  ##|
   |##   `\¸/´   ##|
   |##└         ┘##|
  /#################\
  |#################|
  \###/¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯\###/

User avatar
Hench
Porn, hence, Man
Posts: 498
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 4:16 pm UTC
Location: Right between my eyes
Contact:

Re: Creationism

Postby Hench » Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:33 pm UTC

Since the argument has changed then I suggest changing to a thread on that argument and not a thread called "Creationism". But do as you will, I'm not a mod and have no authority.
Spoiler:
Your perceptions will not change reality, but simply color it.

User avatar
Anpheus
I can't get any worse, can I?
Posts: 860
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:38 pm UTC
Location: A privileged frame of reference.

Re: Creationism

Postby Anpheus » Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:36 pm UTC

The goal of the debate and the result hasn't changed, nor has the cause of the debate changed.

That said, if a mod wants to split this into two topics, I'm curious as to how the Creationism thread could continue except for, a year down the road, a new thread is created and a new debate occurs, and a mod then appends that argument onto this one, and they tread the same ground again.

Essentially, splitting the thread means the debate ends, because people who don't advocate Creationism won't be allowed to inquire as to the integrity of that belief in this thread.
Spoiler:

Code: Select all

  /###\_________/###\
  |#################|
  \#################/
   |##┌         ┐##|
   |##  (¯`v´¯)  ##|
   |##  `\ ♥ /´  ##|
   |##   `\¸/´   ##|
   |##└         ┘##|
  /#################\
  |#################|
  \###/¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯\###/

User avatar
Hench
Porn, hence, Man
Posts: 498
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 4:16 pm UTC
Location: Right between my eyes
Contact:

Re: Creationism

Postby Hench » Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:39 pm UTC

You've moved onto the integrity of religious belief itself - it is tied to creationism but not as restrictive as this thread requires. There's a thread for "Religion" for that purpose. And plenty have argued for creationism with religious backing and tied them together. So it is possible. And I'll say nothing more on whether the debate belongs here, I've spoken my piece.
Spoiler:
Your perceptions will not change reality, but simply color it.

User avatar
Anpheus
I can't get any worse, can I?
Posts: 860
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:38 pm UTC
Location: A privileged frame of reference.

Re: Creationism

Postby Anpheus » Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:42 pm UTC

You ignore the fact that without being able to question the integrity of the belief in a god that does mysterious, unprovable things in the world, we cannot question the integrity of Creationism or Intelligent Design.

In a few centuries maybe we'll be lucky and the theologians will decide there are no further gaps into which god may fit, and move on, but I suspect that even if by then evolution is unchallenged by a better theory and the religious groups have stopped questioning it, there will be new gaps in scientific belief that will need to be filled.
Spoiler:

Code: Select all

  /###\_________/###\
  |#################|
  \#################/
   |##┌         ┐##|
   |##  (¯`v´¯)  ##|
   |##  `\ ♥ /´  ##|
   |##   `\¸/´   ##|
   |##└         ┘##|
  /#################\
  |#################|
  \###/¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯\###/

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Creationism

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:56 pm UTC

Yarg, my point was that religion doesn't have to lie within science's gaps, and THAT belief/faith cannot be dispelled by science!
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Anpheus
I can't get any worse, can I?
Posts: 860
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:38 pm UTC
Location: A privileged frame of reference.

Re: Creationism

Postby Anpheus » Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:58 pm UTC

I agree, which is why it is either illogical (religious belief is that of something that meddles with the world) or isn't scientific (religious belief doesn't interact with the world at all.)

I think I've laid out my reasons why fairly well.
Spoiler:

Code: Select all

  /###\_________/###\
  |#################|
  \#################/
   |##┌         ┐##|
   |##  (¯`v´¯)  ##|
   |##  `\ ♥ /´  ##|
   |##   `\¸/´   ##|
   |##└         ┘##|
  /#################\
  |#################|
  \###/¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯\###/

User avatar
Hench
Porn, hence, Man
Posts: 498
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 4:16 pm UTC
Location: Right between my eyes
Contact:

Re: Creationism

Postby Hench » Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:03 pm UTC

Perhaps belief in a deity and belief(?) in science aren't mutually exclusive. What's wrong with the idea that the deity created the universe so it contains the laws of science and is governed by them? This, of course, leaves the question of where the deity came from (which I think has been mentioned earlier by Belial [among others]) but nonetheless does allow for both belief in science and a deity. I know many people that believe this way, though I personally don't share the belief. Just playing an advocate.
Spoiler:
Your perceptions will not change reality, but simply color it.

User avatar
Anpheus
I can't get any worse, can I?
Posts: 860
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:38 pm UTC
Location: A privileged frame of reference.

Re: Creationism

Postby Anpheus » Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:09 pm UTC

See my earlier posts, that is a 'dangling chain' argument from my perspective, so far. If alternative arguments for the universe are suggested by scientists and we determine those to be valid, then yes, I think even that gap would no longer be large enough for god.

However, until we can peer into the deep past, you aren't really saying anything. You're saying there's a god that exists who doesn't do anything except watch things happen. You can't make any theories or claims from it, and therefore, intelligent design aren't valid.

If however, god does interact with the universe, you create a host of logical fallacies in which you attempt to claim you know what an unknowable, unprovable, omnipotent being thinks and does.
Spoiler:

Code: Select all

  /###\_________/###\
  |#################|
  \#################/
   |##┌         ┐##|
   |##  (¯`v´¯)  ##|
   |##  `\ ♥ /´  ##|
   |##   `\¸/´   ##|
   |##└         ┘##|
  /#################\
  |#################|
  \###/¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯\###/

User avatar
oxoiron
Posts: 1365
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:56 pm UTC

Re: Creationism

Postby oxoiron » Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:11 pm UTC

Maurog wrote:It used to be that God directly caused lightning and thunder and earthquakes and plaques, and before that, also lunar eclipses and winter and flowers, and before that, fire and causing the sun to rise.

Now it's all about electric potential and shock waves and movement of tectonic plates and a bacterium named Yersinia pestis.
I thought plaque was caused by Streptococcus mutans and other anaerobes, while bubonic, pneumonic and septicemic plagues were caused by Yersinia pestis. :wink:
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect)."-- Mark Twain
"There is not more dedicated criminal than a group of children."--addams

User avatar
Anpheus
I can't get any worse, can I?
Posts: 860
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:38 pm UTC
Location: A privileged frame of reference.

Re: Creationism

Postby Anpheus » Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:11 pm UTC

I suspect that given the tooth care situation in medieval europe and their fascination for god punishing them, they believed god caused both.
Spoiler:

Code: Select all

  /###\_________/###\
  |#################|
  \#################/
   |##┌         ┐##|
   |##  (¯`v´¯)  ##|
   |##  `\ ♥ /´  ##|
   |##   `\¸/´   ##|
   |##└         ┘##|
  /#################\
  |#################|
  \###/¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯\###/

User avatar
Hench
Porn, hence, Man
Posts: 498
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 4:16 pm UTC
Location: Right between my eyes
Contact:

Re: Creationism

Postby Hench » Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:13 pm UTC

Anpheus wrote:If however, god does interact with the universe, you create a host of logical fallacies in which you attempt to claim you know what an unknowable, unprovable, omnipotent being thinks and does.

For some it's not about the science or the claiming or the logic. It's about belief. Which, admittedly, makes the conversations hard to have as they're not bound by the logic and reasoning we are. So yes, dangling chain, but still valid. Not terribly useful from a debate stand point, but valid, in my opinion. Just makes the idea neither provable or falsable, thereby not allowing it to be a theory (because it's not science, obviously), but still a valid idea.
Spoiler:
Your perceptions will not change reality, but simply color it.

User avatar
Anpheus
I can't get any worse, can I?
Posts: 860
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:38 pm UTC
Location: A privileged frame of reference.

Re: Creationism

Postby Anpheus » Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:14 pm UTC

Sure, but if they have those beliefs, they can go to a topic where the argument isn't about god interacting in the universe.

Very, very few people on earth who consider themselves 'creationists' think that god doesn't interact in the universe.

Edit: And, regrettably, I have to go to work now, this was fun. Will be back later.
Spoiler:

Code: Select all

  /###\_________/###\
  |#################|
  \#################/
   |##┌         ┐##|
   |##  (¯`v´¯)  ##|
   |##  `\ ♥ /´  ##|
   |##   `\¸/´   ##|
   |##└         ┘##|
  /#################\
  |#################|
  \###/¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯\###/

User avatar
superglucose
hermaj's new favourite
Posts: 2353
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:59 am UTC
Location: Domain of Azura
Contact:

Re: Creationism

Postby superglucose » Sun Dec 09, 2007 4:24 am UTC

Anpheus wrote:If your theory happened to be, back in the middle ages, "God makes the planets go round, god makes the lightning come from the sky, god makes the water turn to ice," then yes, finding out the natural causes for those phenomena changed your view of god.


Unless it's your view that God put those forces in place. Your basis is assuming that god is Omnipotent, and thus can't tire. What if God is merely nearly omnipotent, does tire, and thus created systems so the creation he made would be self-sufficient?

Then all these natural wonders we find are actually proof POSITIVE of god.

And that's the difficulty in discussing supposedly omnipotent or near-omnipotent beings: they're always an infinite number of steps ahead of your reasoning.
Image

User avatar
e946
Posts: 621
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:32 am UTC

Re: Creationism

Postby e946 » Sun Dec 09, 2007 4:45 am UTC

opsomath wrote:I am curious. How, exactly, do you think that the Christian conception of God has changed since the days of, say, Augustine? Because science is capable of making considerably better predictions now than it could then.


For starters, God doesn't send comets at us when he's mad anymore.

User avatar
Anpheus
I can't get any worse, can I?
Posts: 860
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:38 pm UTC
Location: A privileged frame of reference.

Re: Creationism

Postby Anpheus » Sun Dec 09, 2007 4:47 am UTC

What? Wait, how is that an explanation at all? God is now nearly omnipotent, gets lazy, and decides to make laws for the universe to follow... A fact which we already, sort of, agreed that most views of god possess these days.

You haven't established proof POSITIVE of anything except the ability to substitute a natural explanation for an imaginary explanation.
Spoiler:

Code: Select all

  /###\_________/###\
  |#################|
  \#################/
   |##┌         ┐##|
   |##  (¯`v´¯)  ##|
   |##  `\ ♥ /´  ##|
   |##   `\¸/´   ##|
   |##└         ┘##|
  /#################\
  |#################|
  \###/¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯\###/

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Creationism

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Dec 09, 2007 8:07 pm UTC

superglucose wrote:What if God is merely nearly omnipotent, does tire, and thus created systems so the creation he made would be self-sufficient?

Then all these natural wonders we find are actually proof POSITIVE of god.

They're only "proof" of god if you don't start from the supposition that there is a god. But you did, so they're not.

I don't have evidence against God any more than you have for it, but why posit the existence of something when you don't need it for your scientific explanation to explain all the observations? I mean, sure, you can say there really *is* a large pink elephant over there in the corner, who is invisible and immaterial and doesn't interact in any way with the normal matter that makes up my own body. But what does saying that even mean, when it's a completely unfalsifiable (and thus scientifically irrelevant) thing to add to your worldview?

Until you show me some observation that science cannot possibly explain without positing a deity, I'm going to continue believing that adding a Designer to our theories serves about as much scientific purpose as adding the invisible pink elephant.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Minerva
Posts: 947
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:58 pm UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Creationism

Postby Minerva » Sun Dec 09, 2007 10:23 pm UTC

I was not pleased, reading this today.

http://www.crossroad.to/Q&A/Science/sagan.htm

Our high school chemistry teacher requires all his students to read Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan. It has already caused my son to start questioning everything we hold dear, and last Sunday he refused to go to Church. I have already contacted the Chemistry teacher, but he is adamant about forcing students to read it. What can I do?

Question 2: My daughter got back from her first day back in school, and I found out that one of the books that she is required to read for her high school science class is Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan. After reading only a single chapter in class, I have noticed that she has started to question many things such as the existence of Witchcraft and Demons and the reliability of the Bible. Could you send me information about this book and ways to fight against its pull since I am afraid to read it for myself.


"Everything hinges on the matter of evidence. On so important a question as UFOs, the evidence must be airtight. The more we want it to be true, the more careful we have to be. No witness's say-so is good enough. People make mistakes. People play practical jokes. People stretch the truth for money, attention or fame. People occasionally misunderstand what they're seeing. People sometimes even see things that aren't there.

"Essentially all the UFO cases were anecdotes--something asserted. Most people honestly reported what they saw, but what they saw were often natural--if unfamiliar--phenomena. Some UFO sightings turned out to be unconventional aircraft; conventional aircraft with unusual lighting patterns; high-altitude balloons; luminescent insects; planets seen under unusual atmospheric conditions; optical mirages and loomings; lenticular clouds; ball lightning; sun dogs; meteors, including green fireballs; and artificial satellites, nose cones and rocket boosters spectacularly reentering the atmosphere. (There are so many artificial satellites up there that they're always making garish displays somewhere in the world."

Answer: Dr. Sagan seems to leave out the facts and documentation that cannot be explained. He calls for "airtight" evidence, but usually presents the anecdotal stories and hoaxes that can readily be disproven -- then blends obvious hoaxes with his hostile views of Christian faith and other legitimate beliefs.


Damn, could these people get any more thick and closed minded?

As far as I'm concerned, Sagan's works (The Demon Haunted World is particularly good, but at least the DVDs of Cosmos would be more accessible to the kids) should be compulsory content in every high school classroom.
...suffer from the computer disease that anybody who works with computers now knows about. It's a very serious disease and it interferes completely with the work. The trouble with computers is you play with them. They are so wonderful. - Richard Feynman

User avatar
Anpheus
I can't get any worse, can I?
Posts: 860
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:38 pm UTC
Location: A privileged frame of reference.

Re: Creationism

Postby Anpheus » Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:12 am UTC

I particularly like how easy they make it to attack their views, at the end of your linked website they say that god exists because these biblical passages say he does. How can we be so certain people who say otherwise are wrong? Because the bible says people who don't believe are fools! It says right there, in the bible!

That said, I think this argument in this topic is just about dead with no one coming up with a serious response to my posts. I'd like to see some better follow-ups, but the people who believe in creationism or intelligent design appear to have left...

Please, come back! Remember, the unexamined life is not worth living, Plato said that.
Spoiler:

Code: Select all

  /###\_________/###\
  |#################|
  \#################/
   |##┌         ┐##|
   |##  (¯`v´¯)  ##|
   |##  `\ ♥ /´  ##|
   |##   `\¸/´   ##|
   |##└         ┘##|
  /#################\
  |#################|
  \###/¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯\###/

User avatar
N.K.
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:09 am UTC

Re: Creationism

Postby N.K. » Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:18 am UTC

Anpheus wrote:I particularly like how easy they make it to attack their views, at the end of your linked website they say that god exists because these biblical passages say he does. How can we be so certain people who say otherwise are wrong? Because the bible says people who don't believe are fools! It says right there, in the bible!

I laughed. Considerably hard.

Our high school chemistry teacher requires all his students to read Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan. It has already caused my son to start questioning everything we hold dear, and last Sunday he refused to go to Church. I have already contacted the Chemistry teacher, but he is adamant about forcing students to read it. What can I do?

Question 2: My daughter got back from her first day back in school, and I found out that one of the books that she is required to read for her high school science class is Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan. After reading only a single chapter in class, I have noticed that she has started to question many things such as the existence of Witchcraft and Demons and the reliability of the Bible. Could you send me information about this book and ways to fight against its pull since I am afraid to read it for myself.

And they should. Blind acceptance of something without even considering alternatives is, well, stupid.

opsomath
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Creationism

Postby opsomath » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:44 pm UTC

Anpheus wrote:That said, I think this argument in this topic is just about dead with no one coming up with a serious response to my posts.


Um...I found this pretty damn patronizing. Don't you think?

I'd like to see some better follow-ups, but the people who believe in creationism or intelligent design appear to have left...


I'm not sure I'm one of those, but I do seem to have been taking the contrary position to yours a good bit. Anyway, it's not the weekend any more and I've been busy with research - while we have debated over whether religion is good for science, arguing on the internet is definitely bad for getting your science done.

User avatar
Anpheus
I can't get any worse, can I?
Posts: 860
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:38 pm UTC
Location: A privileged frame of reference.

Re: Creationism

Postby Anpheus » Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:34 am UTC

I apologize if I sounded patronizing, but the most recent argument against mine was that it shouldn't occur here... I absolutely think it's a valid position here, but I was told to take it somewhere else and not argue it in this thread. I consider that to be incredibly arrogant. But what can you do?

Anyway, I guess this will continue next weekend.
Spoiler:

Code: Select all

  /###\_________/###\
  |#################|
  \#################/
   |##┌         ┐##|
   |##  (¯`v´¯)  ##|
   |##  `\ ♥ /´  ##|
   |##   `\¸/´   ##|
   |##└         ┘##|
  /#################\
  |#################|
  \###/¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯\###/

Immortal Reborn
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:04 pm UTC

Re: Creationism

Postby Immortal Reborn » Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:13 pm UTC

Hello all, I've only read about 4 pages of this thread, but I'm a Christians who believes in Creation.

So you can repeat any questions that didnt get answered yet, but I'd like to start with this.

Radio-Isotopic Dating Methods. I believe there are many assumptions taken into account when dealing with half-lives and such, which would be unscientific to use them as fact if they have holes in them. Right?

I wont get into them all, just in case you guys have other stuff to discuss first, but we assume the decay rates have been constant for all history (which is probably true, but still an assumption), secondly we assume that no gas of the parent or daughter material has been leached out, or thirdly none of either of the gases has been added.

Pretty important in my book. I have a degree in Chemistry, so I could never understand why they let these assumptions ride. Most of the fossils we date are volcanic. A lot of fissures and gases moving around in those situations.

So I'm putting the burden of proof on you. I don't beleive we have any proof/evidence to support an old earth in the first place. Without an old earth, no evolution. No evolution, creation is true. Creation is true, some God exists. Then we get to pick from Allah or YHWH/Jesus.

User avatar
Hench
Porn, hence, Man
Posts: 498
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 4:16 pm UTC
Location: Right between my eyes
Contact:

Re: Creationism

Postby Hench » Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:26 pm UTC

I'm not terribly familiar with the hard science bits of your argument and certainly not an expert, so I'll leave that to others. But this I can handle.

Immortal Reborn wrote:Without an old earth, no evolution. No evolution, creation is true. Creation is true, some God exists. Then we get to pick from Allah or YHWH/Jesus.


The bolded bits there are quite the logical jump. No evolution does not necessarily imply creation. It implies spontaneous generation, which is not necessarily creation. Then, the second statement: creation does not necessarily imply God. Creation could have been instigated by some other party: a sufficiently advanced alien race, multiple gods, what-have-you. God, the singular ubiquitous being, is not implied by creation in and of itself.

And as an aside...Allah, God, and the Jewish deity are the same being. Jesus is where Christianity brings in another divine, but the ubiquitous God is the same between the three.
Spoiler:
Your perceptions will not change reality, but simply color it.

User avatar
Anpheus
I can't get any worse, can I?
Posts: 860
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:38 pm UTC
Location: A privileged frame of reference.

Re: Creationism

Postby Anpheus » Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:29 pm UTC

Hi, thanks for posting in the thread. I have to go in a minute and won't be back until much later tonight, but I'd like to point out that as you should be aware radiometric dating utilizes a reliable property of the decay rate of various elements and the rate at which they were created in the galaxy, where they should be distributed, etc.

Anyway, it is not typically the decay rate of long-lived radioactive compound which we use to back up the age of the universe, rather a number of things such as the cosmic microwave background radiation (see: the "Science! It works, bitches." shirt) and predictions of the ratio of various isotopes created shortly after the big bang.

You also make a huge logical fallacy near the end of your paragraph that Hench has already pointed out. The earth being young does not necessarily follow from the premise that the data is not foolproof (rather, we want theories that can be falsified.) Likewise, evolution does not follow from there being no old earth (the rate of mutation would have to be much higher thousands of years ago than currently observed.) And then you get to what Hench says.
Spoiler:

Code: Select all

  /###\_________/###\
  |#################|
  \#################/
   |##┌         ┐##|
   |##  (¯`v´¯)  ##|
   |##  `\ ♥ /´  ##|
   |##   `\¸/´   ##|
   |##└         ┘##|
  /#################\
  |#################|
  \###/¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯\###/

daydalus
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 4:05 pm UTC

Re: Creationism

Postby daydalus » Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:30 pm UTC

Immortal Reborn wrote:Hello all, I've only read about 4 pages of this thread, but I'm a Christians who believes in Creation...

...Stuff...



How do you explain geology, sedimentary layers in canyons, mountain ranges, plate techtonics (matching geology on the coasts of africa, south america)?

Robin S
Posts: 3579
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:02 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Creationism

Postby Robin S » Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:33 pm UTC

Immortal Reborn: Radiometric dating methods based on radioisotopes of gases can be, and have been, calibrated against dating methods using other, heavier elements. They all agree: the Earth is around four and a half billion years old. The only way to avoid this conclusion is by assuming that all of the decay rates changed synchronously so that they suddenly started to agree on the same incorrect date. The only reason for making this assumption would be if we assume the Young Earth hypothesis, which would make the logic circular.
This is a placeholder until I think of something more creative to put here.

Immortal Reborn
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:04 pm UTC

Re: Creationism

Postby Immortal Reborn » Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:37 pm UTC

Hench wrote:I'm not terribly familiar with the hard science bits of your argument and certainly not an expert, so I'll leave that to others. But this I can handle.

Immortal Reborn wrote:Without an old earth, no evolution. No evolution, creation is true. Creation is true, some God exists. Then we get to pick from Allah or YHWH/Jesus.


The bolded bits there are quite the logical jump. No evolution does not necessarily imply creation. It implies spontaneous generation, which is not necessarily creation. Then, the second statement: creation does not necessarily imply God. Creation could have been instigated by some other party: a sufficiently advanced alien race, multiple gods, what-have-you. God, the singular ubiquitous being, is not implied by creation in and of itself.

And as an aside...Allah, God, and the Jewish deity are the same being. Jesus is where Christianity brings in another divine, but the ubiquitous God is the same between the three.


If things did not come about supernaturally, then they came about naturally and vice versa. I am unaware of any theory other than evolution and creation for how life came to be. We can talk about aliens, but the Razor cuts them out. And you still have the same question dealing with them. Did these aliens come about from natural mean or supernatural mean.

Causality shows that somewhere there had to be a starting point, if the universe is not eternal. I think the big bang proves that, but that's a different discussion a few pages away I think. If we did not come about from natural means, there had to be an Uncaused being/entity that caused it all. So I feel safe saying that if evolution is not true then a God exists.

While most think that the God of the OT and Allah are the same, they are not. At least from a Christian standpoint. Allah would be a demon, masquerading as a/God. While Jehova and Christ are One in he same. I'm pretty sure from my studies that Christ is the One talking in the O.T. anyway. But why debate these points if you dont even believe a God exists.

Immortal Reborn
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:04 pm UTC

Re: Creationism

Postby Immortal Reborn » Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:38 pm UTC

daydalus wrote:
Immortal Reborn wrote:Hello all, I've only read about 4 pages of this thread, but I'm a Christians who believes in Creation...

...Stuff...



How do you explain geology, sedimentary layers in canyons, mountain ranges, plate techtonics (matching geology on the coasts of africa, south america)?


What every creationist thinks. The Flood.

Robin S
Posts: 3579
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:02 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Creationism

Postby Robin S » Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:42 pm UTC

Not holding a belief doesn't stop people wanting that belief to be accurately represented. You specify that the God in which you believe is the same as the Jewish God, called Jehovah (which probably deserves a thread of its own for discussion) and different from Allah but, as I understand it, Judaism and Islam consider all three Abrahamic faiths to be worshipping the same God. Perhaps Christianity (or perhaps even just the interpretation of it to which you subscribe) is the odd one out.

I am unaware of any theory other than evolution and creation for how life came to be. We can talk about aliens, but the Razor cuts them out.
Occam's Razor, properly interpreted, also cuts God out of the equation. If you want to make a logical argument for the plausible existence of God, you'll have to use something along the lines of "Occam's Razor isn't always right".

Also, please don't double-post, and please don't confuse "every young-earth creationist" with "every creationist".
Last edited by Robin S on Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:46 pm UTC, edited 3 times in total.
This is a placeholder until I think of something more creative to put here.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Creationism

Postby Indon » Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:43 pm UTC

Immortal Reborn wrote:Radio-Isotopic Dating Methods. I believe there are many assumptions taken into account when dealing with half-lives and such, which would be unscientific to use them as fact if they have holes in them. Right?

I wont get into them all, just in case you guys have other stuff to discuss first, but we assume the decay rates have been constant for all history (which is probably true, but still an assumption), secondly we assume that no gas of the parent or daughter material has been leached out, or thirdly none of either of the gases has been added.

No. We know by measuring them (being radioactive isotopes) how radioactive isotopic decay works. We also know the rate of decay is related to the speed of light, which we're pretty certain doesn't change. We also, since we have many samples to work with, see what a 'gas leech' or 'gas added' example looks like, and thus we know how to recognize them. Not much along the lines of assuming there.

Immortal Reborn wrote:Pretty important in my book. I have a degree in Chemistry, so I could never understand why they let these assumptions ride. Most of the fossils we date are volcanic. A lot of fissures and gases moving around in those situations.


What? How could a fossil possibly form in relatively recent volcanic rock?

Fossils form primarily in sedimentary rock, such as limestone and sandstone.

Immortal Reborn wrote:So I'm putting the burden of proof on you. I don't beleive we have any proof/evidence to support an old earth in the first place. Without an old earth, no evolution. No evolution, creation is true. Creation is true, some God exists. Then we get to pick from Allah or YHWH/Jesus.


Firstly, evolution exists regardless of if there's an old or young earth. The difference would simply be in how much evolution has occured so far since the Earth's formation.

Secondly, if evolution as we know it is wrong, that doesn't mean a form of creationism is correct. It might be that there's a kind of evolution we just didn't know about has been working behind the scenes the entire time, for instance.

Thirdly, if evolution as we know it is right, that doesn't preclude the universe from having been Created by a deity, and it doesn't disprove the existence of any deities (that don't rely on the existence of a young earth, anyway).

Fourthly, the world is filled with time-demonstrating layers, which imply an old earth. Let's go over a few, starting with younger examples and working our way up:

-Some trees experience new growth yearly, and develop 'rings' of wood which demonstrate the conditions in which they grew. There are trees that are thousands of years old.

-Glaciers develop slowly, growing new layers of ice yearly as well so long as they are still growing. Each of these layers, similarly to trees, demonstrates the conditions in which the glacier grew larger. There are glaciers that have tens of thousands of these lines, implying that they have grown for tens of thousands of years, and chronologically recent global events that are evident in tree rings are also evident in the corresponding glacier layers.

-Sedimentary rocks are rocks composed of compacted sediment (really, to me compacted regolith seems more accurate, since only some kinds of sedimentary rocks are composed of sediment per se). This sediment forms in layers, like glaciers, but the layers are on a much larger scale than single years. Nonetheless, each layer demonstrates the effects on the sediment of significant local as well as global events. Additionally, geologically recent global events that are evident in glacial layers are also evident in very shallow, presumably recently formed sedimentary rock layers.

From looking at glaciers and other known short-term historical records of our world's climate events, we can glean that sedimentary rock forms largely steadily (and when it forms non-steadily, we can tell because the layers are thicker), very slowly, and that there is a whole freaking lot of it, with many many millions of years worth of layers.

Radioactive materials dating isn't even required to demonstrate the Earth is very old.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Creationism

Postby Belial » Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:43 pm UTC

Immortal Reborn wrote:We can talk about aliens, but the Razor cuts them out. And you still have the same question dealing with them. Did these aliens come about from natural mean or supernatural mean.


The razor tends to cut god out as well. Besides, Aliens would circumvent the "old earth" problem (they came from an old planet) much more easily than God would, without changing how we view the universe as a whole, which is much more razor-compliant.

While most think that the God of the OT and Allah are the same, they are not. At least from a Christian standpoint. Allah would be a demon, masquerading as a/God. While Jehova and Christ are One in he same. I'm pretty sure from my studies that Christ is the One talking in the O.T. anyway. But why debate these points if you dont even believe a God exists.


That's neat, but it doesn't clarify why, if the earth is created through supernatural means, it would have to be your God that did it. It could just as easily be Amon, or the Aesir, or Brahman.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Immortal Reborn
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:04 pm UTC

Re: Creationism

Postby Immortal Reborn » Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:49 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
Immortal Reborn wrote:We can talk about aliens, but the Razor cuts them out. And you still have the same question dealing with them. Did these aliens come about from natural mean or supernatural mean.


The razor tends to cut god out as well. Besides, Aliens would circumvent the "old earth" problem (they came from an old planet) much more easily than God would, without changing how we view the universe as a whole, which is much more razor-compliant.

While most think that the God of the OT and Allah are the same, they are not. At least from a Christian standpoint. Allah would be a demon, masquerading as a/God. While Jehova and Christ are One in he same. I'm pretty sure from my studies that Christ is the One talking in the O.T. anyway. But why debate these points if you dont even believe a God exists.


That's neat, but it doesn't clarify why, if the earth is created through supernatural means, it would have to be your God that did it. It could just as easily be Amon, or the Aesir, or Brahman.


I wasnt trying to clarify that. We're starting from different assumption. If we were agree on a theistic worldview, I would go into it.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Creationism

Postby Indon » Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:52 pm UTC

Immortal Reborn wrote:What every creationist thinks. The Flood.


I'm a creationist, and I don't believe there was ever a global flood.

If there were, such a global event would have been documented by a rise in salt content of all extant glacial formations and rocks formed during that time period, which is not evident. And that's even ignoring the fact that enough water to flood the earth like that doesn't actually exist on earth.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

Robin S
Posts: 3579
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:02 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Creationism

Postby Robin S » Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:53 pm UTC

Immortal Reborn: you didn't need to quote Belial's entire post, especially since you were posting directly below it. I say this because in discussions such as this, where arguments and counterarguments can get pretty lengthy as it is, having people quote each other's posts in their entirety makes for an eyesore.

To chip in on your latest comment, I don't think Belial was making assumptions either way. What he said was more along the lines of "if you assume that the Earth was created supernaturally, your conclusion doesn't automatically follow."
This is a placeholder until I think of something more creative to put here.

Immortal Reborn
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:04 pm UTC

Re: Creationism

Postby Immortal Reborn » Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:58 pm UTC

Indon wrote:Seriously, don't quote the whole post if you don't have to.


Dang it. I posted a response to all this, but something happened and I lost it all. I'll try to get to it later.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests