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.
I voted evolution because I hold it to be more plausible then creationism- but I should add that a vote for evolution is not a vote against a creator.
Legio: The way I always understood it (barely I should add) is that there wasn't a "before Big Bang". We know that singularities bend time/space, inside singularities they don't exist, that a black hole is literally a hole. So in the singularity that the Big Bang came from, there simply was no "before".
Gahism...
Evolution has too many questions not answered, and apparently nobody likes Creationism anymore...
But if you had a "universal time" that the time of individual universes could be plotted against there can be such a thing. The time within the universe can be warped, but "univeral time" can not be.
If this philisophical construct is used there could be a place where the universe we are in was sitting on a "shelf" and was then started by something. Our perception of time then commenced.
~:smoking:
You seem to be arguing from the premise that there must be something outside the universe, something that contains it.
Why?
Me neither really, I was talking about why god would have created a 'finished' world the way it is. Why are some planets older than others ? Why are some stars older than others ? What's the point of a shift in speices (evolution within a species) if God made them exactly like they were for a reason to begin with, did he change his mind ? Were did fossils come from ? Why did the dinosaurs go extinct if they did exist ?Quote:
Originally Posted by KafirChobee
That's the problems I have with 'Creation' as viewed by creationists. There could well be a creator, there might be point to an evolving universe, but that's a whole different story.
I fully support this movement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
I don't think that there must be something outside the universe, merely that we have no way of knowing. I find it easiest to unpeg "time" from the universe if it is placed outside it - even though the outside may only be a philisophical construct.
IMO the topic is as relevant as "Red: what does it smell like?"
~:smoking:
I agree with Aristotles. Its scientific fact that evolution is the way how nature develops species. But i believe in higher power that put everything in motion at the beginning,who has always been and always will be. Who is everything and we are all part of this entity.Thats my personal belief.:bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sjakihata
I voted evolution.
What I'd like to know though is, assuming a god created the universe, what does he get out of it? Why go to all the effort (although for an omnipotent being, I suppose it's no effort at all) of creating everything? Who's he trying to impress? What utility does he get from something so piffling compared to him?
I suppose there are worshippers, but why does an all-powerful being need puny little mortals to worship and justify him? Is he really that insecure? Surely if he wants worshippers, giving us free will was a bad idea....
Also, being omnipotent, he's done a pretty shoddy job. One would think he could have made something a bit more impressive, infinitely more in fact.
...this god character doesn't sound nearly as fantastic as he's made out to be...
Evelotion is demostratable through selective breeding and apparent throughout the world. I'm not budging on this one.
That doesn't mean of course that God didn't flick the "on" switch.
He is a jealous God and you will worhsip no one but He.
He sounds a bit insecure to me. :inquisitive:
These are ofcourse personal beliefs,so there are no right or wrong answers just opinions.But in my wiew its impossible to try to understand what an omnipotent force thinks and what can motivate it.Also i cant think that this kind of force would be inside the limitations of Good and Evil.Maybe he didnt have anything to do and created the universe so he would have something to observe.Or maybe he just dreamed of this universe and by accident it became reality.~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by thrashaholic
Well if I can figure out what white smells like, I could answer you with a good degree of accuracy. As white and red according to some makes an anchovy like smell. :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
The flu is still the flu. It was the flu when it was discovered, it has been the flu for years, and I guess it will continue to be the flu for a long time to come. Unless it has some how "evolved" into some sort of cancer or something of the sort. Do you think that is where aids came from? :laugh4: Seriously, just because it is adapting does not mean it is evolving.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin
Seriously, just because it is falling does not mean it is under the influence of gravity.Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
Aside from what's already been said:Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
- supposed, infinite string of 'creators'.
- pointlessly random and inefficient universe.
There's something more:
- Human understanding is always based on Human knowledge.
What you don't know, you don't understand. My best analogy is a completely blind guy understanding 'color' (on his own without any other aid) using his other normal senses. A blind guy would never even posit on any 'color': red, orange, yellow, violet, indigo, blue etc.
Instead, as egotistic creatures, we create an anthropomorphic 'God' based on our limited knowledge and understanding.
Then we give this 'God' anthropomorphic traits: Seeing, hearing, anger, jealousy, insecurity, kindness etc.
Do plants 'see', get 'angry', get 'covetous'? Which God is based on a plant? No, God is based on humans. :)
What about, Falling in love. Falling asleep. Fall (the season). Are these under the influence of gravity?Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
This shows your understanding of "the flu" to be truly lacking. Indeed, to rely on a single phrase as some sort of serious understanding is most false.Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
We call it "the flu," but while we fail to distinguish between the evolving viruses that caused the disease(s), they are different. They have "evolved."
Second, cancer is not of the same caliber as "the flu," it is a "malfunctioning," a change, in the workings of cells, either from simple aging or from toxins, or from many other factors, or all combined. "The flu," on the other hand, are diseases caused directly by the interference of the viruses.
And there are of course diseases caused by bacteria, which also are fundamentally different.
And you are aware that aids is caused by viruses, right?
Oh dear.Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
You are aware these are languages right? How about metaphors, as in figures of speech?
Something like: God is grave; He falls into a pandemonium of rage, a fire of anger, which is expressed in cheesy metaphors?
Do you actually fall down the ground from actually falling in love?
No wait, don't answer that.
Wow! I have never seen a creationist who was a literalist before...:help:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiki biology
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiki classical physics
I know what the flu is. You guys are missing my point. It is a viruses job to disrupt us biologically, but they will always be viruses. Yes, they will get better at their job, adapt, evolve if you want to use that word, but that does not mean viruses will evolve into something different.
Erm, virus has no "job." It's entire existence is justified by itself. Call that a circular logic, but that's how nature is. Survival is the end, surviving is the means. And by surviving viruses multiply and evolve, changing and keeping ahead. If it happens that viruses use parasitic means to survive, then, well? We aren't that different.Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
And viruses aren't even considered a living organism.
How about bacterias, which are the first living things, or at least the first as is discovered to date, as fossils confirm? How about the growth of bacteria into increasingly larger and more complex organisms, as we see working? How about the various homo-species? How about the link between birds and fish have been found? How about all the evidence involved?
Jeez. I really hate it when one side puts "the blame" on the other side without even providing their own evidence, and then say "your wrong im right" just like that. I don't know why I'm returning because debating with Creationists and Holocaust-deniers are two most annoying debates one could ever get into.
Let's just say you have not provided any evidence to support your thesis whereas we do, and au revoir.
All I said was, viruses will always be viruses. You shouldn't take this thread so hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
Ahh, transitional fossils. Out of the billions, yes billions, of fossils discovered around the world, how many are transitional? 80%? 50%? 10%? 1%? Try a hand full! Sorry, I don't know the exact number, but the fact that its not somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 to 90% really bothers me. Darwin was convinced that evolution would be proven in the fossile record, and was devistated when he found that it was not. Not even 1%? Out of billions!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
Then, where did these so called transitional fossils come from? When I was in school, we learned about Lucy - The famous missing link that swept the science world by storm. American anthropologist Donald Johanson became famous, an over night success, but failed to mention that Lucy was a fake. http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...12/i3/lucy.asp
I suppose that some of you will want to post "examples" of "great discoveries", but unless you can post a million of them (which, by the way, would be less than one tenth of one percent of the billions discovered) it wont be very convincing.
Learn more about transitional fossils:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...i4/fossils.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...1/chapter3.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...i4/fossils.asp
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Now then , how many creationist topics have we had here recently , and how many times have they posted links to that bollox of a site :dizzy2:
Don't like that one? How about these: :idea2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/
http://www.drdino.com/
http://www.creationism.org/
http://www.creationscience.com/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.icr.org/
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/home.html
http://www.nwcreation.net/
http://www.creationevidence.org/
http://www.answersincreation.org/
http://www.creationministries.org/
http://www.creationdigest.com/
http://www.creationfaq.net/
If you would like more, just let me know. :2thumbsup:
wow isn't it amazing how much rubbish you can find on the internet .
creation vs evolution
religeous theories vs science theories
what a pile of tripe
whatever next , house vs tree , submarine vs colour ?
Firstly, the amount of fossiles in general is annoyingly few. Finding a very good line of fossiles is almost impossible.
Secondly, there's proof that micro-evolution can occur quite rapidly and that a lot of physical traits can change within a few generations (often occuring when a rapid change of the environment occurs). An extension of that would mean that many of those transitional fossiles would be extremely few, as most fossiles is from stable species that did exist for a long time.
Third, define transitional. Is the archea Ignicoccus a transitional specie between a procaryote cell and a eucaryote cell?
picture of Ignicoccus
So why did God kill of the dinosaurs ?
Why are Creationists always so insecure, why can't there be a God and evolution ?
Nah, ignorianticcus is the transitional species between a procaryote and eucaryote cell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
You won't find this convincing, but there's not a shortage of transaitional fossils at all. In fact, every fossil points in that direction. Because one thing that creationist fail to understand, is that all creatures are transitional in evolutionary thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
Damn, I was coming to that ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
I'm not saying there was something before, but I'm saying that we shouldn't say there wasn't something before without proof. As it looks to me, it seems more plausible that there was something before. But that doesn't mean there was necessarily something before. Sometimes "I don't know about that part" is the correct answer in a theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
To say there wasn't anything before the big bang is a form of circular proof. It's very similar to methods used by church fanatics to silence all other opinions or theories in historical times. The theory of the big bang first tries to explain observations made, but doesn't apply Occam's razor and therefore also adds uneeded claims not used in my own simplified theory, for example the claim that time-space or energy-matter didn't exist before the big bang. That theory is not founded in observations but in the lack of usage of Occam's razor when trying to explain the observations - have you or anyone else found an argument based on an observation that would counter-prove the simplified theory I proposed but would support the other big bang theory?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Nah, do a search in yahoo or google. Use "billions of fossils".Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
I don't mind using the word micro-evolution. Its macro-evolution that is a fallacy. Like I said before about the flu (viruses) a virus will always be a virus, a dog is a dog and always will be, a human is a human...etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Ahh, prokaryote to eukaryote. Another example of evolutionist trying to cram something into an evolution box that does not belong. The following a quick reads if you would like to know why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...dosymbiont.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/eukaryote.asp
Animals go extinct every day.:skull:Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Insecure? That's like saying all Evolutionists are communists. :no: Which they are not. Concerning God and evolution - God can use any method He chooses, but I don't think He uses macro-evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
So, what method do you think "he" uses?Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
I read part of one of those links. Why do creationists insist on using terms such as these.
Many evolutionists believe
Evolution is not a belief system. (However creationism is).
This is akin to people of faiths insisting that atheism is a belief that God does not exist.
Why does this blind spot exist? :inquisitive:
So why did God create them if only to go extinct ? Wouldn't you say, some species surviving and others not is a sign of one species being better adapted than another ? Say, isn't this aking to evolution theory ?Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
Creationism is a reaction towards evolution theory, which is a scientific theory, creationism is religious dogma. Not accepting evolution (as a viable THEORY at least, and really, as the best theory we have right now) is indeed similar to not believing in gravity, as Pape pointed out already.Quote:
Insecure? That's like saying all Evolutionists are communists. :no: Which they are not. Concerning God and evolution - God can use any method He chooses, but I don't think He uses macro-evolution.
Why do you want evolutionists do defend themselves btw, if creationism is that great explain to me what proof you have, don't point out the 'problems' with evolution, but give clear evidence pointing towards creation, say, all life having started around the same period would have been a good one, or all mammals having emerged during the same period even. :juggle2:
The burden of proof is upon the one who challenges the common paradigm.
So, the world is 6000 years old?
He uses any method He wants. Didn't I just say that?:wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
I would not begin to put Him a my own little box of explaination.
Hmm. So basically the evidence of God bieng in control is non existent - but that's OK as he's so great none is required! :dizzy2:
~:smoking:
Here is a couple of the difinitions of Religion. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Religion:
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
If you see a crime occur, you know it happened.
If you hear the evidence in a court room, you believe it happened based on the evidence.
I feel the need to point out that the Spaghetti Monster does not take too kindly to this false God you speak of that supposedly created the universe... if you want to find the truth, look here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
Martyr, I had no idea you were a Pastafarian.
Crossroads, I'm curious -- if you accept that evolution occurs on the micro-level, what leads you to believe that the same rules to not apply to more complex organisms?
Ive been a Pastafarian ever since His Noodleness showed me the divine path of Truth.
So you need evidence to believe something then. So what evidence do you have that:Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
1 God exists.
2 That God greated the universe.
3 That evolution is a myth.
:inquisitive:
---------------------------------------------------------------
May the sauce be with you. :laugh4:Quote:
Ive been a Pastafarian ever since His Noodleness showed me the divine path of Truth.
Actually, that's survival of the fittest, the natural progression of nature. Some species go extinct. Are you saying death is a way of advancement? Strange concept unless you are a Christian. But we can save that debate for another Thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Actually, evolution is a reaction to creation, which obviously was the first belief. The Bible came before Origin of the Species. Have you looked up the word Theory? Theory does not mean Proven Fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Go back and read the beginning of this thread. I simply said I was a creationist. It is I who am having to defend myself by the onslot of evolution propaganda. Look up geochronometer. The majority of them suggest a young earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
The definition of belief clearly ommits evidence as a requirement.
But surely then atheism is a belief, as again there is no cast iron evidence to support it.
~:smoking:
Probably a few more than that. Could be 60 billion! I don't know what God did with His possessions before Creation.Quote:
Originally Posted by _Martyr_
There is a nice line in the bible that says “The righteous will live by faith.” Anyone trying to prove gods existence is going against gods will? No?
If there's no support, then there's no reason to warrant a conclusion. Creation may have happened as described, but until I'm shown the logic behind it, I have no justification to that belief. I also have no proof of many other things, and no disproof, and I wonder why one would believe one reasonless conclusion above all the others and w/o all the others.
Its called permissive will.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
I say that the righteous must understand just how they are right, and they will be unable to be righteous w/ just faith to lead them.:balloon2:Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
Im not talking about some empty universe that God was sitting around on his own in. Im talking about the birds and the trees, the mountains and lakes and of course, humans. How old are all of these? The Bible indicates an age of about 6000 years. Is this correct do you think?Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad