Printable View
I've seen hints of this debate throughout the Forums and thought it would be interesting to see your posts. Personally I'm a Creationist. The idea of something coming from nothing only works in my mind when you ad a Creator to the question of origin.
This is probably a vain request (because some of you like to copy whole chapters in text books and paste them in your posts) but try to keep it short and sweet.
My Apologies if this has been done before.
Isnt' that kind of a dodge at best though?
It would seem by requiring a creator to get something from nothing, you've no longer gotten something from nothing. Now, you've got something from a creator.
However, now you're kind of stuck explaining where the creator came from, neh? Since something cannot come from nothing, this creator cannot come from nothing, requiring his own creator...which will require his own creator, ad infinitium.
Doesn't seem like that's actually getting you anywhere. You're stuck with an infinite regression of creators, making the question of origin pointless as there can be no real origin, or you eventually reach a creator without a creator, which makes the 'no something from nothing' rule invalid.
Gah!
Gah! Gah! Gah! Gah! et Gah!
(I voted evolution.)
It's a theory, still, but it's at least the product of sound minds. :book:
Of course, your question is vague; in fact, there is no question at all. Creation vs Evolution what? Is it "what you believe?"; "what is more plausible?"; "what's the product of fanaticism?"; "what sounds better?"; "what is scientifically supported?"
I assume it's "what is less funny?"
the answer to this thread is "no".
The idea of something coming from nothing only works in my mind when you ad a Creator to the question of origin.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
There goes a central plank of creationist theories:oops:
Theoretically there can exist a 'first mover' as Aristotle descripes him, without running into the problem of regression ad infinitum. He could always have been there (hence not coming from nothing because he is there and have always been there) that means he isnt coming from nothing, because he have existed at all times and will continue to exist.
Now I see what they were going at in the monastery, about Aristotle influencing Christianity and Islam.
Evoultionist, myself.
I personally believe that universe has always existed or was created way before big bang, and that big bang was merely the creation of the planets, stars and galaxies closest to where we happen to live. As such, there's no "something coming out of nothing", which I too think is a pretty unfounded, ridiculous and unscientific idea lying behind the traditional big bang theory. Following upon the creation of earth by big bang, it's not difficult to trace all the steps of evolution - from the evolutionary fight between molecules, a very special form of half self-replicating molecules evolved, then developing into becoming better at self-replication by entering capusles to bring with it helper molecules for the task, then creation of advanced cells, and after that multicellular organisms evolving as cells merging finding an advantage in doing so. Every step of the chain has a clear causality and every change has a cause. However if something came out of nothing, then there would most likely have needed to be an outer stimuli in my opinion, an outer force of some kind or another. Which IMO makes the big bang theory, unlike evolution, religion.
Gah. lock teh thread. Please
Evolution, that's the way the world (universe works), cause and effect, action and reaction. Things don't *suddenly* appear.
Ad to why they would appear I wouldn't know, but then, when did God appear and why ? And why did he create the universe ? And why did he create it like it is ? A creator makes far less sense to me than evolution.
No, don't lock it. I have seen the light. :idea2: The idea of a omnipresent being makes more sense than the thought that our puny minds cannot grasp the concept of infinity and timelessness.
I shall now go and have a bath and contemplate my navel.
The Big Bang theory only states that it's impossible to see any further behind it because it created the laws and the time that we see today.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
Whatever existed before is impossible to know, according to current theories.
Point is that it can also be applied to the universe aswell, we simply have indications about it (or parts of it) transforming from time to time, getting "reborn" if you wish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sjakihata
Anyway the more I'm thinking about it the more I feel is that if there's a eternal omnipotent God, the creator of universe and that man is chosen by Him, God certainly has an odd perspective on propotions :laugh4:
Choosed Evolution BTW.
Is the mix choise if you belive that God used evolution to create humans or...?
That's your perogative, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with biological evolution.Quote:
The idea of something coming from nothing only works in my mind when you ad a Creator to the question of origin.
See the discussion in this thread in the monastery: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=65763 (especially second page)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Here's my reply to a similar statement in that thread
Your statement above is a circular proofQuote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
I voted for Creation. Too many reasons to write why...
LOL!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by DukeofSerbia
~:smoking:
Actually I'm agreeing with you somewhat. You cannot exclude the existance of a universe existing outside or before our own (our universe started to exist with the Big Bang though). What I'm saying is that everything that possibly exists outside/before our universe is as easy to meassure as how long a kilogram is.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
More importantly, does a banana prove God's existence? Swallow that, evolutionists!
(I know I posted this video in another thread, but it's good enough to post twice.)
I vote evolution but I think there is a god. Figure that out.:dizzy2:
There's no paradox in being a theist who believes in evolution. I'm also in that boat, and as a Christian, I find the majority of the arguments put forward by creationists downright offensive.
Why these people believe that God must operate using any mechanism they can understand is beyond me. God is, by definition, infinite and unknowable. If you can't handle that, and you need to boil the Almighty down into something simple you can understand, you're missing the essence and the substance of faith.
Researchers have created certain building stones needed for life by electrocuting lifeless elements.
That and the continuing stream of DNA proof (&ofcourse Darwins theories)made me an evolutionist. That and being a complete agnost.
Evolution.
Take a look at the common flu and its need of a new vaccine every year.
Being an atheist doesn't hurt either I suppose...
Creationism and Evolutionism are not mutually exclusive, but there are some blind sighted fundamentalists on both sides that refuse to see that.
You know how evolution of one species into another can't be seen happening and therefore evolution is a faith?
Not any more http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2225929.html
Oh, why do I bother.
Actually they are wholly completely and utterly mutually exclusive. Ignorance and knowledge usually are.Quote:
Creationism and Evolutionism are not mutually exclusive, but there are some blind sighted fundamentalists on both sides that refuse to see that
Agreed :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
I know the feeling.Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
Myself, I can not comprehend the thought of thunder being a meteorological phenomenon. There must be a higher force at work. Besides, nobody has ever managed to make a thunder in a laboratory, thus proving that Thor exists.
I shall now write to my local school board, insisting they teach Germanic Gods as an alternative to unproven meteorology.
Why oh why can't I just resist posting about this subject? :wall:
Evolution.
Foxes are in my bin every night.:furious3:
Then at some point in the future, they will all have bin-shaped snouts. :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
So one fox meets the other and says: 'Shall we go over to Brenus' tonight?'
Says the other: 'Nah, bin there, done that...'
I'll get me coat....:oops:
First, I voted evolution. However, I do not see a problem with evolution being within the plan of a supremebeing. Recall a Minister's sermon (in my youth) asking the question. "What is a day to God?" A day in creation could well be millions, even a billion years. He also said the Bible was a book of parables and fables meant to demonstrate how man should behave - it lays the ground work for law, but was not meant to be the law of man; so much as the moral guide to how one should conduct themselves within the confides of their society.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Those that expound on the idea that the bible is literal - miss the point entirely and miscue the meanings held in it.
Also, read recently (in PB) a readers response to a couple of honored "Darwin detractors" - Prof. Michael Behe & David Berlinski. The reader (Walt nobody) said: I would like to see the debate move away form "Where did man come from?" to the more germane question of "Where did this god come from?" The theists should ponder that and leave the rest of us alone.
To this I say, amen.