Arguments for and against Creationism in American schools

[Furunculus]

It would be a sad thing if Darwinism was false.

Think of it... how many species go extinct each year? How many have gone extinct since the beginning of time? If species continue to go extinct, and no new ones "evolve", then eventually, all that will be left are people, cows, and chickens.

And then one good virus destroys our food animals and we go extinct. You folks better hope to your God that Darwin wasn't wrong.

there have been a great number of times when the diversity of species has bottlenecked.

the Cretaceous/Tertiary extinction reduced biomass by about 65% and biodiversity by 75%, and the Permo/Triassic extinction was even worse at 80% of biomass and 90% of biodiversity.

notice that biodiversity always dips more than biomass which is because the species least adapted to the changing environment go extinct wheras the remainder suffer but survive. and regardless of this new species emerge to fill ecological niches and biomass and biodiversity recover.............. until next time.

[The Celtic Viking]

Einstein believed in Spinoza's god, which basically makes him a pantheist as I understand it. That's, as Richard Dawkins said, is "glorified atheism". It doesn't really matter, though, as the point was simply to show that he did not believe in the Christian god, or any god at all that interfers with nature in any kind of way, as Comfort in the video claims he did.

Seriously though, what we be so bad about the universe having been created by a supreme being?

It's not that I see it as something bad if it was, it's simply that there is no evidence for it, and thus no reason to believe it. If the universe was created by a "supreme being" and you could prove it, then I would believe, but until then I remain unimpressed.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I've seen that Banana clip before, I thought it was a joke? Please don't tell me those guys were genuine?!

[PBI]

Seriously though, what we be so bad about the universe having been created by a supreme being?

It seems to me an inherently anthropomorphic explanation, when we seem to have overwhelming evidence that the universe is not anthropomorphic and certainly not anthropocentric. Basically the universe is very, very big and the overwhelming bulk of it seems to be entirely inaccessible to us. To me it stretches credibility far more to imagine that the Universe was created by God, for humans, than to imagine that God was an invention of humans, and which in turn arose naturally out of the Universe.

Not to mention explaining the Universe as having been created by a supreme being seems to raise more issues and apparent contradictions than it resolves. The one that bugs me most personally is "how does an omniscient creator get around Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?" but there are many more. One could simply hand-wave it all away as being "far beyond the comprehension of us mere mortals", or slightly more tolerably, "an impossible question for us to answer given the limitations of the Universe we live in", like asking "what's inside a Black Hole", or "what was around before the Big Bang". But that to me seems to carry implications that the Universe must ultimately be beyond our ability to comprehend, an intellectual dead-end I find deeply unsatisfactory and which I see no reason to accept until all other possibilities are exhausted.

[Lord Winter]

No wait what does Heisenberg's uncertainy principle have to do with God? Isn't just our inabillity to be certain of an electrons location? I wasn't aware of any metaphysical extensions.

At the same time the lack of a suprume being, also brings up contradictions. How did the universe get here? Why did it first start? and don't say the big bang since that doesn't fully answer the question (not to say its not true, it just isn't definitive on the whole god question. A theistic worldview doesn't mean crazed bible thumping christan or even organized religon at all.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I can never understand why anything exists at all. Some for of matter/thing must have had to exist for the big bang to take place, but where did that come from? On the other hand, how did God come into being?

Clearly my line of thought that everything must have a beginning and be created is wrong. But I'm completely stumped, I used to try to image complete nonethingness before and I just ended up feeling dizzy.

[PBI]

No wait what does Heisenberg's uncertainy principle have to do with God? Isn't just our inabillity to be certain of an electrons location? I wasn't aware of any metaphysical extensions.

It's a tad more fundamental than that.

In the most commonly accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics (the Copenhagen interpretation) the uncertainty principle is regarded as absolute; it is not simply the case that the electron has a physical location and we just don't know what it is, the point is that the particle's location cannot be known by anyone since it literally is in a superposition of all possible states.

The contrary idea, that the location and momentum of particles do in fact have some definite value before we measure them but we just don't know what they are, has actually been experimentally disproven, since it places constraints on particle entanglement called Bell inequalities. As I understand it all attempts to check the Bell inequalities to date have found they do not hold, instead agreeing with the predictions of quantum mechanics.

Thus, as far as we can tell, it seems that particles really do exist in a superposition of states, that Schroedinger's cat, for example, truly is both alive and dead simultaneously. Furthermore it seems the universe must be inherently probabilistic rather than deterministic, since as far as we can tell particles behave in a way which implies that their momentum and position cannot be known simultaneously even by God, since they have no physical reality.

At the same time the lack of a suprume being, also brings up contradictions. How did the universe get here? Why did it first start? and don't say the big bang since that doesn't fully answer the question (not to say its not true, it just isn't definitive on the whole god question. A theistic worldview doesn't mean crazed bible thumping christan or even organized religon at all.

Certainly I would agree that the origin of the Universe (or in other words "What caused the Big Bang?) is an unanswered question. It is also very possibly an inherently unanswerable one. As far as I'm concerned, the current list of possible explanations for the cause of the Big Bang currently includes literally anything, since we have absolutely no observational data on conditions before the Big Bang. I suppose that somewhere on this infinite spectrum of possible theories is the idea of an intelligent creator. However, I see no reason to favour such a theory above others since it is anthropomorphic, and anthropomorphic or anthropocentric theories of cosmology have not historically been very successful. I prefer to keep an open mind on the entire question for the time being, since I suspect that if an answer ever is found, it will be quite as much of an out-of-the-blue curveball as quantum mechanics was.

I can never understand why anything exists at all. Some for of matter/thing must have had to exist for the big bang to take place, but where did that come from? On the other hand, how did God come into being?

Clearly my line of thought that everything must have a beginning and be created is wrong. But I'm completely stumped, I used to try to image complete nonethingness before and I just ended up feeling dizzy.

I wonder whether this points the way to a resolution to my little uncertainty principle paradox? That I am taking a far too absolute view of either time or causality, and that a supreme being would be free to muck around with one or both.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I encourage a blow-by-blow rebuttal to Sigurd's post. I am not a scientist, so my answer would be limited, even if it is as reasonable as possible.

[PBI]

I encourage a blow-by-blow rebuttal to Sigurd's post. I am not a scientist, so my answer would be limited, even if it is as reasonable as possible.

I would like to, but I am not quite sure what point he was trying to make. That Genesis accurately predicts current scientific understanding of the origins of the Earth and the life on it? Or that if you are reading Genesis as a metaphor, you can reinterpret it to mean just about anything?

I guess he has a point in that a non-literal reading of Genesis does not explicitly contradict the scientific account, at least in broad strokes, although this bit in particular seems a real stretch:

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Ok not exactly chronological here… But this talks of the continuance of dispersing the dust from around the sun. When the dust finally was dispersed enough for the stars to appear as lights on the firmament, they could be seen from the surface of the young earth.

It seems to me that this very clearly states that God made the Sun after the Earth, not simply that it was already around but only became visible later on. This would be a pretty huge discrepancy with the scientific model.

The trouble is though that these exact passages can and have been interpreted as agreeing with totally different models; we can't possibly conclude that Genesis exactly predicts only the scientific model and none other, with no room for ambiguity. In essence this seems like a statement that Genesis is worded vaguely enough that it can be contorted to agree with any model, so that it can be made to agree with the current scientific one is not surprising.

[Sigurd]

I would like to, but I am not quite sure what point he was trying to make. That Genesis accurately predicts current scientific understanding of the origins of the Earth and the life on it? Or that if you are reading Genesis as a metaphor, you can reinterpret it to mean just about anything?

I guess he has a point in that a non-literal reading of Genesis does not explicitly contradict the scientific account, at least in broad strokes, although this bit in particular seems a real stretch:

First of all, I proved yet again that scripture can be interpreted in a different way. I have made a point of mentioning there being 38 000 different Christian denominations, each subscribing to one book as basis for their doctrine, priesthood and authority. My logic dictates that they can't be all right. Most likely they are all wrong.
They have debated every point of doctrine that the Bible covers, and disagreement is abundant.
Why can't I interpret too? (argumentum ad hominem tu quoque )

To say that Genesis treats the creation of the entire universe, is hard pressed. Ergo, I assume it treats the creation of our solar system at most and only our planet at least. (That the original author had any concept of the difference between a solar system and the universe is unknown).

I would have thought that the strongest opposition to my "explanation" of Genesis would have come from the Creationists or anti Evolutionists.

It seems to me that this very clearly states that God made the Sun after the Earth, not simply that it was already around but only became visible later on. This would be a pretty huge discrepancy with the scientific model.

The genesis account lacks the words Sun and Moon. Instead it speaks of lights (though it says stars).
That is not to say the words do not appear in the Bible at all. The truth is, they are named sun and moon many times over (91 hits of the word sun just in the old testament KJV), even in parts of the books of Moses.
In verse 3 it says: let there be light and it was light. If we limit the scope of the creation to our solar system - I would assume this is the main light, ergo the sun. And the following verses speaks of dividing light and darkness, calling light day and darkness night. Why it says made in the 16th verse can be attributed to mistranslation or intentional changes to the original record. Can we even trust any of it?

I think I have demonstrated that the argument going on between creationists and evolutionists are merely based on assumptions. There are more common ground to be found than what is currently in camps IMO ...

[PBI]

I would have thought that the strongest opposition to my "explanation" of Genesis would have come from the Creationists or anti Evolutionists.

Hey, so long as we are in the business of reinterpreting scripture to to fit observation and not the other way around, I'm happy.

I would disagree rather strongly with any assertion that Genesis accurately predicts what has later been found by science, which seems to have been an implication in some other posts, but which I acknowledge was not actually your point at all (which I seem to have rather widely missed in my previous post ).

I would question, is there any theory which could be proposed for the origin of life which Genesis would unambiguously contradict? Certainly there must be a great many disparate theories which Genesis could be made to agree with.

The genesis account lacks the words Sun and Moon. Instead it speaks of lights (though it says stars).
That is not to say the words do not appear in the Bible at all. The truth is, they are named sun and moon many times over (91 hits of the word sun just in the old testament KJV), even in parts of the books of Moses.
In verse 3 it says: let there be light and it was light. If we limit the scope of the creation to our solar system - I would assume this is the main light, ergo the sun. And the following verses speaks of dividing light and darkness, calling light day and darkness night. Why it says made in the 16th verse can be attributed to mistranslation or intentional changes to the original record. Can we even trust any of it?

On this I am quite happy to concede, my knowledge of the Bible in its various versions and translations being cursory at best.

[Crandaeolon]

I encourage a blow-by-blow rebuttal to Sigurd's post. I am not a scientist, so my answer would be limited, even if it is as reasonable as possible.

A blow-by-blow rebuttal to something so heavily based on interpretation wouldn't really mean anything, except maybe as a fun thought exercise. Still, I'll humor you with the paltry couple of points that are even remotely "interpretation-proof."

One such point is "water" existing/appearing before dry land. In Hebrew, the word "mayim" is used throughout the account, and most likely does not mean other than water in the literal sense. AFAIK, evidence does not point to earth being completely covered in water at any time in its existence.

Another point is "plant life" appearing first. Even the algae mentioned by Sigurd are, according to evolutionary theory, too complex to be the first lifeforms. Of course, one could still theorize that God's message was distorted by contemporary understanding; something like "bacteria" would make little sense to the original author(s.)

In any case, Genesis quite unambiguously talks about grass, herbs and trees being the first forms of life. While some forms of red algae ("plants", but that is stretching it a lot) are the first discovered multicellular fossils, it's pretty universally recognized that "creeping things" (arthropods and whatnot) existed before anything that might be mistaken for grass, herbs or trees. Creepy crawlies would also be the first land animals, not amphibians.

Further dissection doesn't yield much stuff that wouldn't succumb to interpretation. I suppose one could point out that whales didn't appear before other mammals (they're descendants of land mammals), and birds as understood by "fowl" are seriously out of alignment as well.

Also, I'm pretty sure that sea creatures and land creatures are their own categories - it's a real stretch to say that life would spread from sea to land. Someone with more energy and interest might want to look up an analysis of the original Hebrew passage.

I would disagree rather strongly with any assertion that Genesis accurately predicts what has later been found by science

I don't think anybody really suggested here that Genesis has much explanatory or predictive value in science.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I feel I'm somewhat on the sidelines at the moment, but I'll offer a couple of things in support of Sigurd's thesis. Something which is a relatively new developement is the theology of progressive revelation, which posit's man gradual understanding of God's will as a cumullative process over many generations. In this framework Genesis is an example of God making an early attampt to explain creation and man not understanding properly.

That's the theory.

[The Celtic Viking]

I encourage a blow-by-blow rebuttal to Sigurd's post. I am not a scientist, so my answer would be limited, even if it is as reasonable as possible.

You don't need to be a scientist: it's internally inconsistent and fallacious from get-go.

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Introduction and header line to the account. No real information here except that we are informed that this account is about the formation of the heaven and the earth.

Yes, lots of information.

1. There is a "beginning". No such has been found through science.
2. There is something called "god", and it's not defined. Therefore, the word is empty and means absolutely nothing.
3. Heaven and earth were created. Science does not support this - in fact, the conservation of energy law blatantly states that this is impossible.
4. Heaven and earth existed from this beginning. As you is about to say yourself, this is false. See quote below:

Science tells us that about 4.7 billion years ago our solar system was merely a cloud of gas and dust.

No earth or heaven there. Ergo, heaven and earth weren't created in the beginning.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
The earth is without form and is a void. Darkness rules and nothing is created yet. God is however moving upon the waters. Notice that it does not state that God created this water.
If this void with water contains an unformed earth, this could only be the dark cloud of dust and gas that will be our solar system in the future.
Science tells us that about 4.7 billion years ago our solar system was merely a cloud of gas and dust. The cloud consists of 75% Hydrogen. This cloud is affected by some external force, most likely a supernova that sets this cloud in a rotation motion. It is interesting that hydrogen means water source in Greek. The rotating cloud collapses because of the mutual gravitational attraction of the constituent gas molecules and dust particles. As the cloud becomes denser it starts to block out light from the surrounding universe. As the cloud continues to collapse, regions of higher density forms within it.

If the earth was without form, what was it? If it has no form, can it really exist?

"Spirit" and "god" are two undefined words, and thus empty and meaningless.

There is also no reason to think attribute the science behind it to god, other than you wanting it to be so.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
At the center of the cloud the density is highest and the gravitational potential energy is converted to heat. The center is progressively getting hotter until the density and temperature is high enough for nuclear fusion of hydrogen (water) into helium. The ignition of nuclear fusion in the core of the densest part of the cloud gives birth to a new star.

Now you're not just attributing something to this "god-thing" with no justification at all, you're even ignoring the scripture. Just look! It says quite blatantly that light was created (before any light-producing object, I might add - and also against the conservation of energy law) by this "god-thing's" word. No gravity, no density, no nuclear fusion: just a magic word.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
The new formed star is surrounded by darkness in the middle of the dust cloud. It begins blowing off the remaining dust and gas and clears the immediate space around it.

Did light really need to be "divided from the darkness"? I always thought it did a pretty god job at that by itself.

But again you're attributing it to this "god-thing" with no justification.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
That which is caught in the light of the star is called day and that which remains in darkness is night. The earth or that which will become the earth is one of amongst other denser areas in the cloud. The hotter regions close to the center only allows the formation of rocky planets, while further from the center where it is substantially colder, gaseous planets are formed.

Once again you admit that the Earth did not exist from "the beginning", as Genesis claims.

There is still no definition for the word "god", and it should be common knowledge by now that it is we humans who called the light time "day" and the dark time "night". That's blatantly against science.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

I am going to loop these verses together as they speak of the same thing.
These verses seem to describe the creation of an atmosphere and the formation of land and sea.
Volcanic activity from internal heating created the second atmosphere containing outgassed water, methane, ammonia, sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide. The earth is bombarded by large objects and the earth’s crust is continually fractured. Ocean basins are formed in this bombardment and the earth’s surface is cooled enough for rain to fall and fill the basins. The atmosphere consists of very little oxygen. However, in the basins of water photosynthesis by blue green algae begins to release oxygen into the atmosphere. But the formation of reduced minerals such as banded iron chert, detrital pyrite and uranite could not have been formed if even 0, 1 percent of the atmosphere had been oxygen. About 2.0 to 1.5 billion years ago levels of oxygen increased due to the activity of the blue green algae. No more reduced minerals are laid down and oxidized minerals are found. Ozone is also formed in this era that lasts until 800 million years ago. Ozone is an important component for life to be protected by UV radiation from the sun.
The continental plates are formed and the process known as plate tectonics begins. As the various continental plates collides mountain ranges form. Dry land appear.

"God-thingy" not justified nor defined, that he created anything goes against the conservation of energy law, a lot of "seeing that it was good", chemical reactions are not creation events, yada, yada, yada...

You're really boring me, you know.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Plant life would be the obvious first choice to put on a earth. They consume carbon dioxide and produces life necessary oxygen. The earth was not favorable for life with its atmosphere of carbon dioxide, hydrogen, sulfur, methane etc. but lacked any free oxygen. Plant life such as the blue green algae (the oldest fossils found) would prepare the earth for animal life.
Land plants starts appearing about 420 million years ago but did not become common until about 360 million years ago. The first appearance of flowering plants was not until 120 million years ago. Grasses are not found until around 57 million years ago.

Again, we have this "god-thingy" (still not defined!!!) creating it with a magical word. With - a - magical - word. No science, just magic. You show your own bias when you try to defend that which is ridiculous by replacing it with science and pretending that's what it actually says, even though you know that it isn't so.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Ok not exactly chronological here… But this talks of the continuance of dispersing the dust from around the sun. When the dust finally was dispersed enough for the stars to appear as lights on the firmament, they could be seen from the surface of the young earth. These verses also speak of the fine-tuning of the earths movements. The revolution taking 24 hours, the tilting of the axis to produce seasons, the periods of changing light of the moon and the time it takes to make one orbit of the sun. The seasons can also be determined by which star constellations are visible at a given period of the year. All of it had to be fine tuned to produce the times and seasons we have now.

No, it talks about how this "god-thingy" (am I a fool for still waiting for a definition?) created more things with his magical words. Still no science, just plain magic. That's obviously not what science says, and you know that!

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
Amphibians were the first creatures on the earth and it states here that life came from the sea. The great dinosaurs were birdlike no? (Ok stretching this a bit). Anyway science agrees that life began in the seas and moved eventually to the earth.

This part clearly states that he created (RAPE! RAPE!! YOU'RE RAPING THE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY LAW!! ) every animal at the same time. This is so obviously against evolution that you should feel ashamed of yourself for ignoring it. Yes, I say you ignore it, because that's what you're doing! You know this, but because it's against your dogma you pretend that it's not there. It's being dishonest to yourself.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
After the creatures of the sea and the fowls on land, came primates and finally the hominids.

I’ll stop here as this point… but the order of things is very much in accordance with what comes through science.

I have no doubts of and would assume that over the years this record has been changed several times by translations and mistranslations. Even an early church with an agenda would likely change any of this.

"Even an early church with an agenda..." Hmpf. I will say that every church that has ever existed has an agenda, not just the early ones.

In any case, we're still talking about breaking the conservation of energy law and evolution, to just name two.

Let me say it again: I'm a simple layman, and still it's easy to see through this. An actual scientist (or simply someone who cares enough to put a little more energy in it than I deemed it worthy of) would undoubtedly find more objections, but it doesn't really matter. I have shown that the magical fairytale that is Genesis does not stack up with science.

I feel I'm somewhat on the sidelines at the moment, but I'll offer a couple of things in support of Sigurd's thesis. Something which is a relatively new developement is the theology of progressive revelation, which posit's man gradual understanding of God's will as a cumullative process over many generations. In this framework Genesis is an example of God making an early attampt to explain creation and man not understanding properly.

That's the theory

This makes no sense. Why would he not just say exactly what, when and how he did it from the beginning? Why would he write a document that is not only contradictive with science, but also with itself? Why didn't he just create us with the knowledge? Why would he make two different versions of Genesis? Why?

[seireikhaan]

Guys, sorry if I derail the thread ever so slightly. But something just occurred to me, and I frankly cannot imagine why it hadn't before.

Since I'm basically going to assume that The Celtic Viking has a more learned position regarding the scientific laws than myself(hey, I'm an accounting major ), I'm going to issue the query in his direction. The law of Conservation of Energy does state that energy cannot be destroyed or created, correct? Just that it is transferred in some manner or another?

[||Lz3||]

Well... yes.. that is correct... Things can't just appear from nowhere... (and yet they must come from somewhere).

I honestly believe that teaching children the creationism in school is NOT correct. They should learn the scientific (presumptive non-biased) versions in school... AND if their parents wish them to learn the other version they should go to the local church or something.

The fact that no-one can explain something at the moment, doesn't mean we should attribute those phenomena as something made by this "God".

[The Celtic Viking]

Guys, sorry if I derail the thread ever so slightly. But something just occurred to me, and I frankly cannot imagine why it hadn't before.

Since I'm basically going to assume that The Celtic Viking has a more learned position regarding the scientific laws than myself(hey, I'm an accounting major ), I'm going to issue the query in his direction. The law of Conservation of Energy does state that energy cannot be destroyed or created, correct? Just that it is transferred in some manner or another?

Well, I wouldn't claim to sit in any kind of "learned position" either, but yes, you're correct.

Edit:

Well... yes.. that is correct... Things can't just appear from nowhere... (and yet they must come from somewhere).

Why? Why do you say it "must come from somewhere"? Why can't it just always have existed?

People seem to think it's fine that time will go on forever, so why do people have a problem with has gone on indefinitely? I'm not saying this is definitely so, I'm just saying that we know of no beginning as of yet, so there's no reason to assume there is one. Actually, it follows from the COEL that energy has simply always existed, albeit in different forms.

The fact that no-one can explain something at the moment, doesn't mean we should attribute those phenomena as something made by this "God".

Exactly.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

1. There is a "beginning". No such has been found through science.
2. There is something called "god", and it's not defined. Therefore, the word is empty and means absolutely nothing.
3. Heaven and earth were created. Science does not support this - in fact, the conservation of energy law blatantly states that this is impossible.
4. Heaven and earth existed from this beginning. As you is about to say yourself, this is false. See quote below:

1. Big Bang, a candidate at least.

2. Definition: I am.

3. Define created, physicists seem to think that there was a time when the universe was a tiny little something or other.

4. In the beggining there was God, it doesn't necessarily have to deal with the whole cosmos.

This makes no sense. Why would he not just say exactly what, when and how he did it from the beginning? Why would he write a document that is not only contradictive with science, but also with itself? Why didn't he just create us with the knowledge? Why would he make two different versions of Genesis? Why?

Free will, it allows you to ask why. It also means you do your own learning and make your own mistakes, just like a child. Like a child hummanity is guided by it's parent, God, and like a child it often fails to listen or understand.

About the conservation of energy law:

What if God is pure energy?

[seireikhaan]

Why? Why do you say it "must come from somewhere"? Why can't it just always have existed?

People seem to think it's fine that time will go on forever, so why do people have a problem with has gone on indefinitely? I'm not saying this is definitely so, I'm just saying that we know of no beginning as of yet, so there's no reason to assume there is one. Actually, it follows from the COEL that energy has simply always existed, albeit in different forms.

My apologies, but I feel I must point something out- this seems like a complete cop out. How exactly can something logically have "always existed"? I could just as logically state that God and some basic matter always existed, and that he just decided one day to terraform the heck out of everything and that humans just couldn't comprehend the Law of Conservation of Energy back when the bible was written, as it would have blown their minds.

[Ronin]

My apologies, but I feel I must point something out- this seems like a complete cop out. How exactly can something logically have "always existed"? I could just as logically state that God and some basic matter always existed, and that he just decided one day to terraform the heck out of everything and that humans just couldn't comprehend the Law of Conservation of Energy back when the bible was written, as it would have blown their minds.

there is a difference between having the honesty to say "I don´t know exactly how that happened"...and making up fanciful stories.

[seireikhaan]

there is a difference between having the honesty to say "I don´t know exactly how that happened"...and making up fanciful stories.

If you can't explain something, how can you declare any possible explanation for it to be a "fanciful story" with any degree of certainty?

[The Celtic Viking]

1. Big Bang, a candidate at least.

Well, the Big Bang theory is a theory AFAIK, and thus not so much a "candidate" as a "winner".

Unfortunately, Big Bang is all about a transition from one state to another, not about creation.

2. Definition: I am.

Huh? How is that a definition for the word "god"? Are you saying that "everything is god"? I'm confused.

3. Define created, physicists seem to think that there was a time when the universe was a tiny little something or other.

To cause to come into existence, of course. That's kind of what the bible says when it claims that "god is the creator of everything", isn't it?

I don't see how the universe having been tiny is relevant here.

4. In the beggining there was God, it doesn't necessarily have to deal with the whole cosmos.

That's just an assertion (both that there was a beginning and that there was something called "god", which you still haven't defined - at least not so that I can understand what you were trying to say).

If this "god" is supposed to have created everything, as the bible states, then yes, it does necessarily have to deal with the whole cosmos.

Free will, it allows you to ask why. It also means you do your own learning and make your own mistakes, just like a child. Like a child hummanity is guided by it's parent, God, and like a child it often fails to listen or understand.

Oh, don't get me started about free will... it's not good for anyone.

But okay, I'm kind of forced to, so I'll keep it short. "Free will" is one of those inconsistent things in the bible. Firstly: is god omniscient? Then he must know what you will "choose" to do before you actually do it - in fact, he must know what you would do even before he created you! There is thus only one option you can make, and there is no free will.

Secondly: does god have a plan? That's something people often say to condole someone who's mourning someone's death: "it was all a part of god's plan". But if god has a plan, and he enforces it to the point of killing/letting people die, then he's removing our free will. If he does anything at all to make his plan happen, then he's interfering with our free will.

Thirdly: can you really call it "free will" if he says "you're free not to do exactly as a tell you, but of course I'll torture you for an eternity if you don't"? It's like a parent telling his kids that he can paint his room any colour he wants - but if it isn't yellow by the time he finishes, he'll get his kicked?

Fourthly: even ignoring all that and saying we have free will, god doesn't care about it. After all, in Exodus he "hardened the pharaoh's heart" so that he would not let the Jews go.

Fifthly, and lastly, we do not have free will. Scientifically speaking. I will provide you to a link where you can read a long essay about it that wasn't written by me, but it's an excellent read if you take the time for it. I can summarize it quickly and awfully poorly by saying that though we're not "programmed" to do x thing at y time, we necessarily react a certain way to the input we get. That is, when you see something, your eyes have no choice but to react the way it does, and send the signals to your brain, which in turn has no choice but to react upon that the way it does and so on. Since our brains dictate what we perceive to be "us" (you know - your personality, your memory... everything like that), we also have no choice but to react as we are, because that's simply how it must react.

Didn't I warn you that my summary would be awfully poor? You can read the mentioned article here, and it's called: "Free will: Why we don't have it and why that's a good thing".

About the conservation of energy law:

What if God is pure energy?

Huh? How would that change the fact that he couldn't create anything?

My apologies, but I feel I must point something out- this seems like a complete cop out. How exactly can something logically have "always existed"? I could just as logically state that God and some basic matter always existed, and that he just decided one day to terraform the heck out of everything and that humans just couldn't comprehend the Law of Conservation of Energy back when the bible was written, as it would have blown their minds.

You would, if it had not been for Occam's Razor, which says that the simplest explanation is the preferred one/the most likely. Since my version is much simpler than yours, it is also much more likely. You are bringing something to the table (god) which you have no evidence for, and I am not.

You're also getting it the wrong way around: I was mostly answering to the special plea of "everything needs a creator, except this god-thing that has always existed".

As a last side note, why would god create us with these mental facilities and the will to understand if he intended us to not be able to understand anyway?

Edit: Oh, and I might add that it's a little late here (01:57 to be precise), so be merciful on me when it comes to spelling and such.

I'm going to bed now.

[Lord Winter]

(Note: I'm not a creationist in the common sense of the word, I belive in science and the conclusions that we have drawn from it. However I am still a theist)

Well, the Big Bang theory is a theory AFAIK, and thus not so much a "candidate" as a "winner".

Unfortunately, Big Bang is all about a transition from one state to another, not about creation.

Usually theory needs be defined to the other side of the argument but it seems like it needs to be the other way here. A theory is a model attempting to explain a law. To become a theory it needs extensive data collection and evidence to support it. This data however DOES NOT make infallible. Instead, the theory is what we feel the most likely explanation is with the data we have (if we can make that explanation that is.) Overtime the theory is revised and the model corrected to become more attuned with our current findings. Take for example our understanding of gases, we went from understanding relationships between pressure, volume and temperature, to the kinetic molecular theory and finally corrected the assumptions made in the KMT. In short a theroy is one step in the scientific process. At the time we do not still understand gravity as a force or some of the finer details that are needed. Not saying that the big bang is false, I just wouldn't be surprised to see a new model in a hundred years or so.


I'll also try to stay brief in my discussion on free will. In the question of the existence of God freewill doesn't matter. Both sides are compatible with a theistic view point. You can either take the God made us as carbon computers rout or try arguing the dualism side of it. Either way it neither disproves or proves God. In fact you could argue that the fact that we are nothing more then bits of carbon is irrelevant to freewill. I would love to start a thread on this but I don't feel like the argument is realitive hear.

Finally, I wasn't aware that there was a clear consensus on freewill. The article you linked is from a clearly biases website. (We cure you of god!) Plus the author has no credentials what so ever. Find me a bio PHD then he'd carry more weight then you do in your arguements.

[Papewaio]

Fifthly, and lastly, we do not have free will. Scientifically speaking. I will provide you to a link where you can read a long essay about it that wasn't written by me, but it's an excellent read if you take the time for it. I can summarize it quickly and awfully poorly by saying that though we're not "programmed" to do x thing at y time, we necessarily react a certain way to the input we get. That is, when you see something, your eyes have no choice but to react the way it does, and send the signals to your brain, which in turn has no choice but to react upon that the way it does and so on. Since our brains dictate what we perceive to be "us" (you know - your personality, your memory... everything like that), we also have no choice but to react as we are, because that's simply how it must react.

That assumes a clockwork brain. Even a transistor isn't just 0 and 1 if the wrong input voltage is used. Our brains are capable of having many strategies for any given situation... and what is the trigger level? It could be lower then a chemical reaction, it could be a quantum computation... so we have several simultaneous states and just a probability matrix of what the reaction is.

We can also train/condition our brain to change the way we react. So I wouldn't with confidence say that we must react in a certain way, I would say we have a probability to do so.

[Big_John]

1. Big Bang, a candidate at least.

2. Definition: I am.

3. Define created, physicists seem to think that there was a time when the universe was a tiny little something or other.

4. In the beggining there was God, it doesn't necessarily have to deal with the whole cosmos.

you do realize that this line of argument invariably leads to the obviation of the God you are arguing about, right?

Free will, it allows you to ask why. It also means you do your own learning and make your own mistakes, just like a child. Like a child hummanity is guided by it's parent, God, and like a child it often fails to listen or understand.

"free will" is some mighty shaky ground on which to rest and argument.

About the conservation of energy law:

What if God is pure energy?

what if god is a 22 year old chinese lesbian that lives in a doll house at the center of the moon? why posit absurd questions?

[Ronin]

If you can't explain something, how can you declare any possible explanation for it to be a "fanciful story" with any degree of certainty?

there is a difference between a theory based on observable facts and something just pulled out of thin air and imagination.

There are different degrees of possible "explanation".....

Scientific observation of the universe gives us clues that the universe is expanding, and by observing this expansion scientists theorized that at some point in the past all the universe was contained in one single point and expanded from there....they called this moment the big bang....this is a logical conclusion from observed facts.

where did the mater that constitutes the universe comes from? we don´t know.
what was there before the big bang? we don´t know.

....maybe someday we will find evidence that will give further insight into these questions...and maybe we won´t...honestly these questions don´t keep me up at night.

Simply going "when I can´t explain something, then God did it" is just a cop out...
it´s a fairy tale built upon nothing else but the fact that some people can´t deal with the "I don´t know" answer, for some strange reason I can´t fully grasp this freaks them out.
But the fact that some people like this "safety blanket" does not endow it with any logic value.

I could just as easily write a book about a magical creature called 'pillow-pants' and say that he created the universe and everything in it during a cosmic game of lego with his cousin 'Rashnavack'
Is this a silly and fanciful story? absolutely.... but it has as much going for it as any other God tale....

[seireikhaan]

Simply going "when I can´t explain something, then God did it" is just a cop out...
it´s a fairy tale built upon nothing else but the fact that some people can´t deal with the "I don´t know" answer, for some strange reason I can´t fully grasp this freaks them out.
But the fact that some people like this "safety blanket" does not endow it with any logic value.

I could just as easily write a book about a magical creature called 'pillow-pants' and say that he created the universe and everything in it during a cosmic game of lego with his cousin 'Rashnavack'
Is this a silly and fanciful story? absolutely.... but it has as much going for it as any other God tale....

1) I am NOT stating that "just because I don't know, it must be God". If you had read my first response to this thread, you would notice I do not favor teaching creationism as science, because it is not. So frankly, you can put the hostile connotations down.

2) You have yet to explain how one can simply abandon a particular theory regarding an unexplainable action just because it seems rather bizarre. Example: I imagine that before telescopes, trying to figure out if the earth or sun was the center of the universe(of course, neither are, but I digress) was, for all intensive purposes, impossible. Yet, should they have abandoned the idea that neither was the center of the universe and filed it away into "fairy tale" land just because it seemed so illogical?

You would, if it had not been for Occam's Razor, which says that the simplest explanation is the preferred one/the most likely. Since my version is much simpler than yours, it is also much more likely. You are bringing something to the table (god) which you have no evidence for, and I am not.

You're also getting it the wrong way around: I was mostly answering to the special plea of "everything needs a creator, except this god-thing that has always existed".

And, for the most part, Occam's Razor is fairly reliable. However, I return to my previous example of the center of the earth. Before telescopes, it seemed far most likely that the Earth or Sun(generally earth, though some deviated) was the center of the earth. They couldn't yet prove it one way or the other. But certainly, Occam's Razor would logically point to one of of these two as the answer. However, it is most certainly incorrect to state that either is the center of the Universe. Again, I am not saying with all certainty that what I proposed is correct- merely that discounting it as a fairy tale is actually quite illogical.

As a last side note, why would god create us with these mental facilities and the will to understand if he intended us to not be able to understand anyway?

Ah, but he did create us with the mental facilities. Certainly you and a boatload of scientists have comprehended the law of conservation of energy quite well. It just took us a few thousand years to get around to it.

As for the free will part... I don't particularly feel like going into an argument over that. I'll just summarize by saying I disagree with your viewpoint that evolution and socialization take all actual choice out of life.

[Ronin]

2) You have yet to explain how one can simply abandon a particular theory regarding an unexplainable action just because it seems rather bizarre.

I am not saying a theory should be abandoned because it seems bizarre.......something might seem bizarre but if there are some facts that point towards it then it is a possible explanation.

what I am saying that if you have zero observable evidence to support an idea, then it is at the present time nothing more than fiction and not a theory.
This can of course change if further evidence is uncovered on the subject.

[seireikhaan]

what I am saying that if you have zero observable evidence to support an idea, then it is at the present time nothing more than fiction and not a theory.
This can of course change if further evidence is uncovered on the subject.

No, it is not quite fiction. It is an idea. Nothing more, nothing less. Personally, I value ideas, though in pertinence to the current discussion I stay rather agnostic on due to the inherent impossibility in attempting to comprehend it in any exact form. Interestingly, I also happen to appreciate open books.

[Sigurd]

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Introduction and header line to the account. No real information here except that we are informed that this account is about the formation of the heaven and the earth.

Yes, lots of information.

1. There is a "beginning". No such has been found through science.

There is not a beginning of the creation of our solar system? Do you postulate that our solar system has always been there?

2. There is something called "god", and it's not defined. Therefore, the word is empty and means absolutely nothing.

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, Post hoc ergo propter hoc

3. Heaven and earth were created. Science does not support this - in fact, the conservation of energy law blatantly states that this is impossible.

Maybe organized would be a better word. There are translations out there suggesting organizing would be a better translation than creating. But it is not too hard to imagine that an artist can create a masterpiece. But we implicitly understand it in the ex nihilo nihil fit, kind of way.

4. Heaven and earth existed from this beginning. As you is about to say yourself, this is false. See quote below:

See above

Science tells us that about 4.7 billion years ago our solar system was merely a cloud of gas and dust.

No earth or heaven there. Ergo, heaven and earth weren't created in the beginning.

See Creation vs Organization.

If the earth was without form, what was it? If it has no form, can it really exist?

It was disorganized as in being a cloud of gas and dust. Take the artist analogy again. A masterpiece without form would be an empty canvas; some tubes of paint, a paint brush and a talented artist's unfinished strokes.

"Spirit" and "god" are two undefined words, and thus empty and meaningless.

Again: Argumentum ad Ignorantiam

There is also no reason to think attribute the science behind it to god, other than you wanting it to be so.

Strawman.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
...

Now you're not just attributing something to this "god-thing" with no justification at all, you're even ignoring the scripture. Just look! It says quite blatantly that light was created (before any light-producing object, I might add - and also against the conservation of energy law) by this "god-thing's" word. No gravity, no density, no nuclear fusion: just a magic word.

Strawman… nowhere in that verse does it say created.
It would be like me stating: “Let there be light” and then I switch on the light switch in my house, and make the follow up statement: “and there was light”.

Did light really need to be "divided from the darkness"? I always thought it did a pretty god job at that by itself.

If you were inside the dense cloud of gas and dust around the place of where the earth would be, then it might be that you wouldn’t have seen the light of the new born star. You would be in darkness because the dense cloud of dust and gas blocks out all light. However, the star is starting to blow away this gas/dust and as it clears the space immediately around it the light starts to fall on objects, Mercury being the first planet to witness daylight.

But again you're attributing it to this "god-thing" with no justification.

You are missing the point of my original post.

Once again you admit that the Earth did not exist from "the beginning", as Genesis claims.

I must disagree with your premise that Genesis speaks of the creation of the universe and I have never claimed that it does. Hence Strawman.

There is still no definition for the word "god", and it should be common knowledge by now that it is we humans who called the light time "day" and the dark time "night". That's blatantly against science.

Common knowledge? Arumentum ad populum.

"God-thingy" not justified nor defined, that he created anything goes against the conservation of energy law, a lot of "seeing that it was good", chemical reactions are not creation events, yada, yada, yada...
You're really boring me, you know.

Argumentum ad Hominem

Again, we have this "god-thingy" (still not defined!!!) creating it with a magical word. With - a - magical - word. No science, just magic. You show your own bias when you try to defend that which is ridiculous by replacing it with science and pretending that's what it actually says, even though you know that it isn't so.

Argumentum ad nauseam

No, it talks about how this "god-thingy" (am I a fool for still waiting for a definition?) created more things with his magical words. Still no science, just plain magic. That's obviously not what science says, and you know that!

I might at this point make the statement, that I didn’t make an argument for the existence of God, nor did I write the word “god” in any of my commentary on the factual scriptures which I quoted from the King James Version of the Bible.
STRAWMAN!!!

This part clearly states that he created (RAPE! RAPE!! YOU'RE RAPING THE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY LAW!! ) every animal at the same time. This is so obviously against evolution that you should feel ashamed of yourself for ignoring it. Yes, I say you ignore it, because that's what you're doing! You know this, but because it's against your dogma you pretend that it's not there. It's being dishonest to yourself.

Argumentum ad nauseam, Strawman, Argumentum ad baculum, Argumentum ad logicam etc..

"Even an early church with an agenda..." Hmpf. I will say that every church that has ever existed has an agenda, not just the early ones.

True, but we are talking about deliberately changing the texts in scripture here.

In any case, we're still talking about breaking the conservation of energy law and evolution, to just name two.

Again…. I have never argued for creatio ex nihilo, you assume this, therefore: Strawman.

Let me say it again: I'm a simple layman, and still it's easy to see through this. An actual scientist (or simply someone who cares enough to put a little more energy in it than I deemed it worthy of) would undoubtedly find more objections, but it doesn't really matter. I have shown that the magical fairytale that is Genesis does not stack up with science.

Yes.. and you missed the point of my post completely.

If you want to debate the existence of God or any topic around this, I am game. But my original post was meant as a stab against creationism and not to prove that the bible describes current science. Heck, I am not sure what current science says anymore.

Besides, I am no Thomas Aquinas.