• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Evidence for or against a creator?

The truth is that many people come to the theory that blacks are physically superior based on racism. That is, they are hard pressed to explain why blacks excel in sports and are unwilling to accept the obvious answer, because they worked harder or smarter at developing those skills. To those people the hard working thinking man's athlete is ALWAYS the white guy. Arguing that blacks are blessed with physical skills allows people to continue in the misguided belief that blacks are stupid and lazy.

This notion should have been dispelled long ago. Frank Robinson knew baseball. Hell, so did Jackie. Both worked hard too. Blacks soon dominated baseball, but not anymore. Maybe, the hispanics are physically superior now because it can't be hard work or knowledge.

After this I am done. This is an inaccurate interpretation of the world around you. The reason why blacks do so good in athletics, is because for generation after generation the gene pool of African Americans had to do with physical genetics. The man who could work longer, lift heavier objects, and consume the least amount of resources, ensured that his genes would be passed on to the next generation.

And so you see a NBA who is dominated by blacks. A NFL, which is the same. Baseball, a large portion with some of the best players to ever play the game. And well, I have a comedian that shares my views!

 
Last edited:
If you are going with evolution as the answer to why blacks appear to be physically superior to Northern Europeans, I wouldn't start with N. American slaves. You might want to push your hypothesis back several thousand years and claim that N. Europeans are inferior to the original Africans.
 
The bigger issue, here . .. is that meager human beings are trying to comprehend something that they can only see through a telescope and monitor with sub-par equipment and deduce through theory and imperfect mathematical calculation.

It's all very fascinating but individuals who spend time crunching away at these problems fail to account for their shortcomings and barricades into the mix.
 
Last edited:
If you are going with evolution as the answer to why blacks appear to be physically superior to Northern Europeans, I wouldn't start with N. American slaves. You might want to push your hypothesis back several thousand years and claim that N. Europeans are inferior to the original Africans.

You are ignorant of what you are talking about. I suggest you read the book Guns, Germs, and Steel. It'll make things much better.
 
You are ignorant of what you are talking about. I suggest you read the book Guns, Germs, and Steel. It'll make things much better.

I have read it and lent it out to others. I have even watched the PBS Special hosted by Mr. Diamond himself. I am confused however, that you think a couple hundred years evolution of N. American slaves has anything to do with the book. I am also confused that you some how think that N. American slaves are physically hardier and more athletic than their non-slave kin still in Africa. Also if slavery was all it took, wouldn't we see history of these evolutionary marvels around the world where other cultures have previously had slaves?
 
When I take a break from reading about economic theory, I dive into theoretical physics. I've been reading about physics since I was a freshman in high school. As it was typical for me, I would skip class to read about the oddities as well as complexities of our universe.

I am currently reading a book that in my opinion is a first of its kind. The usual structure of a book on physics coincides with television documentaries. It starts with thinkers during The Enlightenment (Capernicus, Galileo) and works its way through their concepts to modern day thinkers like Einstein and Stephen Hawking. However, this book is taking a whole new approach.

This book travels to the various remote areas of the world that have been given the task of providing experimental data of our universe. Experiments range from detecting dark matter to lightning fast murons.

I wanted to share with you an excerpt from this book.

[Source
Ananthaswamy, Anil. The Edge of Physics: A Journey to Earth's Extremes to Unlock the Secrets of the Universe. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2010. 88-89. Print. ]

"The discovery of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) cemented the notion of a big bang. But for all its elegance, that theory had thrown up some intractable problems. Soon after the CMB was discovered, Dicke went to Cornell to talk about an aspect of the big bang that was seriously bothering theorists: the flatness problem. According to measurements at the time, the density of matter seemed almost equal to the so-called critical density - the density that was needed to make the curvature of the universe flat. (A flat universe is one in which two parallel lines remain parallel all the way to infinity, whereas in a "closed" universe the line will converge. In an "open" universe, two parallel lines will eventually diverge. The two-dimensional surface of Earth is closed: Two lines that start off parallel at the equator will touch at the poles. A saddle provides an example of an open surface on which two parallel lines will diverge.)
As Dicke pointed out in his talk, if the matter density had been greater, then the universe's curvature would be closed, and if it had been lower, the universe would be open. But the universe seemed to be flat, meaning that the ratio of the actual matter density to the critical density, which is denoted by a parameter called Omega, was very close to 1. And for today's universe to have Omega anywhere near 1, its value just one second after the big bang would have had to be exactly 1 to a precision of about fourteen decimal places."

And so I ask, how do you perceive this? Is this evidence for or against a Creator?

For me, when I read that about thirty minutes ago for the first time, I had chills throughout my body, with tears welling up in my eyes. For me, this is undoubtedly evidence that we coexist with an all powerful being.

Well basically I see it like this: The Book of Genesis gives a technically accurate description of our origin. This is information humans could not have otherwise possessed at the time, as they lacked any form of science, unless it were given to them by (a) superior being(s).

Additionally, each ancient history of all major global religions fit together like a puzzle, offering a total world history where the earth has always been frequented by superior beings.

Based on that evidence it is my opinion that a Creator and lesser beings of great variety do exist, and have always been here.
 
Last edited:
I have read it and lent it out to others. I have even watched the PBS Special hosted by Mr. Diamond himself. I am confused however, that you think a couple hundred years evolution of N. American slaves has anything to do with the book. I am also confused that you some how think that N. American slaves are physically hardier and more athletic than their non-slave kin still in Africa. Also if slavery was all it took, wouldn't we see history of these evolutionary marvels around the world where other cultures have previously had slaves?

I also have read the book and seen the PBS special.
I to am curious as to how you think a couple hundred years evolution of N. American slaves has anything to do with the book?

Sookster can you please list the chapter and page and the exact quote in which where Mr. Diamond states that blacks are physically superior due to eugenics so that I can see for myself?

I can't seem to find it?

And one other thing Sookster.

Really now?
You post a R-rated video on a forum that as far as I can tell has no filters to prevent any little children from viewing it.
Really now?

I got infraction points and a post painted red by the mods just for writing the word s***.

If you are going to be allowed posted R-rated videos on this forum with impunity,then everyone should have the right to do so.

And I know of a view "doozies" that I can post here that can back up any point I wish to make myself.
 
Last edited:
The physics of the first picoseconds of our universe are fairly shaky, and the cause of a big bang is essentially impossible to prove. There could very well be physical properties of the universe that not only make this amount of matter probable, but maybe even guaranteed.
 
Well basically I see it like this: The Book of Genesis gives a technically accurate description of our origin. This is information humans could not have otherwise possessed at the time, as they lacked any form of science, unless it were given to them by (a) superior being(s).

Additionally, each ancient history of all major global religions fit together like a puzzle, offering a total world history where the earth has always been frequented by superior beings.

Based on that evidence it is my opinion that a Creator and lesser beings of great variety do exist, and have always been here.

At first I was like
OpoQQ.jpg


But then
lol-face.jpg
 
Well basically I see it like this: The Book of Genesis gives a technically accurate description of our origin. This is information humans could not have otherwise possessed at the time, as they lacked any form of science, unless it were given to them by (a) superior being(s).

Exactly what is this "technically accurate description of our origin" that you speak of?

Additionally, each ancient history of all major global religions fit together like a puzzle, offering a total world history where the earth has always been frequented by superior beings.

Does the INS know about this?
Someone really should do something about these space people sneaking into our planet without greencards.

I really wish these (illegal)aliens would stop sticking their noses (or whatever ET has ) into our planets business.

Haven't they heard of the Prime Directive?

Based on that evidence it is my opinion that a Creator and lesser beings of great variety do exist, and have always been here.

I'm glad you used the words "it is my opinion".

Me personally,I prefer a little more physical evidence.
 
Before getting into evidence for or against any specific god or creator, I'd like to nail down exactly what this thing is. Who and what is this creator? What, besides creating, does it do? How did it supposedly create things, and what did it supposedly create? I often find it difficult to discuss whether or not god or gods or creators or whatever are there, since we're very often discussed different things.

So, tell me about this creator.
 
Before getting into evidence for or against any specific god or creator, I'd like to nail down exactly what this thing is. Who and what is this creator?

A vastly superior being, relative to humans, at or above a type III civilization.

What, besides creating, does it do?

As many things as you or I do, I suppose.

How did it supposedly create things, and what did it supposedly create?

Just as it's not reasonable to expect a cave man to understand the finer points of our modern space flight, so would it be unreasonable to expect our type 0.70 civilization to understand the finer points of anything a type-3+ civilization could accomplish.

I often find it difficult to discuss whether or not god or gods or creators or whatever are there, since we're very often discussed different things.

I note a difference between seeing that someone created something, and identifying the exact individual who made it.

If I'm walking down the street and find a pocket knife, I don't need to first identity who made it to know it didn't randomly form by chance.
 
If I'm walking down the street and find a pocket knife, I don't need to first identity who made it to know it didn't randomly form by chance.

Unfortunately for you, pocket knives do not reproduce and pass DNA from one generation to the next.
 
Unfortunately for you, pocket knives do not reproduce and pass DNA from one generation to the next.

Neither do planets.

My point was that I'm simply not interested in trying to identify the Creator. I leave it open and up for each individual to decide for themselves.

My purpose here is simply to present the evidence I have that there is a creator. I'm not trying to push my religion on anyone, so I leave people to believe what they will. Hopefully the reader will at least walk away from this thread with a better understanding of what I think. If this doesn't happen, well, life goes on.
 
Neither do planets.

My point was that I'm simply not interested in trying to identify the Creator. I leave it open and up for each individual to decide for themselves.

My purpose here is simply to present the evidence I have that there is a creator. I'm not trying to push my religion on anyone, so I leave people to believe what they will. Hopefully the reader will at least walk away from this thread with a better understanding of what I think. If this doesn't happen, well, life goes on.

Neither do mountains. Maybe you think the Creator guy sculpted each mountain individually, but the rest of us understand the tectonic processes that led to their formation, just like we understand the cosmological processes that led to the formation of the solar system.
 
Neither do planets.

My point was that I'm simply not interested in trying to identify the Creator. I leave it open and up for each individual to decide for themselves.

My purpose here is simply to present the evidence I have that there is a creator. I'm not trying to push my religion on anyone, so I leave people to believe what they will. Hopefully the reader will at least walk away from this thread with a better understanding of what I think. If this doesn't happen, well, life goes on.

If you consider evidence for a Creator of life to be found in the human design of a specific inanimate object, I think you need a refresher course on what "evidence" is.
 
Neither do planets.

My point was that I'm simply not interested in trying to identify the Creator. I leave it open and up for each individual to decide for themselves.

My purpose here is simply to present the evidence I have that there is a creator. I'm not trying to push my religion on anyone, so I leave people to believe what they will. Hopefully the reader will at least walk away from this thread with a better understanding of what I think. If this doesn't happen, well, life goes on.

The nature of biological life is far different from the nature of planets, Jerry. I'm sure you know this, yet you equate the two in order to push the idea of a Creator. And I find your hiding behind the false neutrality of "oh, I'm not describing a specific Creator..." is a even bigger load of crap.
 
A vastly superior being, relative to humans, at or above a type III civilization.

As many things as you or I do, I suppose.

Just as it's not reasonable to expect a cave man to understand the finer points of our modern space flight, so would it be unreasonable to expect our type 0.70 civilization to understand the finer points of anything a type-3+ civilization could accomplish.

From this, it really looks as though there is no set definition for this creator, other than "something greater than us". That doesn't tell us anything about the motivations, nor the intentions of this creature. In fact, there's really no reason why sentience is required to create stuff. Impartial and automatic processes are just as capable of creating things as some sort of disembodied intelligence, or are you suggesting it was aliens? Even that, at least, is more reasonable, since no magic is thus required. Perhaps we'll find some big black obelisks out in space?

I note a difference between seeing that someone created something, and identifying the exact individual who made it.

If I'm walking down the street and find a pocket knife, I don't need to first identity who made it to know it didn't randomly form by chance.

You're partially correct. You don't need to know the name of the company or the exact machine that made the knife, but you have knowledge of how it was made. You know it was made because you know how it was made. And you know the natural state of "unmade" things. You know that metal and plastic have to be manufactured. We do not, however, know what goes into making a universe. We don't know what an unmade universe looks like, nor anything about it.

So yes, you don't need to know who made it, but you need to know how it was made. What we know of how the universe was made does not suggest any kind of intelligence behind it, and certainly does not suggest a beneficent one over a malicious one. If we knew, for example, that the means to create a universe could not be accomplished by the collapse of a previous one, that would be evidence for outside intervention. A sentient creator is certainly not a self-evident truth of the universe.
 
The nature of biological life is far different from the nature of planets, Jerry. I'm sure you know this, yet you equate the two in order to push the idea of a Creator. And I find your hiding behind the false neutrality of "oh, I'm not describing a specific Creator..." is a even bigger load of crap.

There is, actually, plenty of cosmological evidence to suggest that stars are subject to natural selection too, since they are self-reproducing. The stars that are less capable of efficient fusion burn out and do not create new stars.
 
Neither do mountains. Maybe you think the Creator guy sculpted each mountain individually, but the rest of us understand the tectonic processes that led to their formation, just like we understand the cosmological processes that led to the formation of the solar system.

Non of my beliefs conflict with evolution.

You would do well to check sources when they are provided.
 
If you consider evidence for a Creator of life to be found in the human design of a specific inanimate object, I think you need a refresher course on what "evidence" is.

I'm sorry you missed my point, and I'm afraid I don't see your point here, either.
 
The nature of biological life is far different from the nature of planets, Jerry. I'm sure you know this, yet you equate the two in order to push the idea of a Creator.

I did not equate them, simply made an analogy to express that I do not need to identify who made something in order to surmise that the thing was created.

And I find your hiding behind the false neutrality of "oh, I'm not describing a specific Creator..." is a even bigger load of crap.

Life goes on.
 
From this, it really looks as though there is no set definition for this creator, other than "something greater than us". That doesn't tell us anything about the motivations, nor the intentions of this creature. In fact, there's really no reason why sentience is required to create stuff. Impartial and automatic processes are just as capable of creating things as some sort of disembodied intelligence, or are you suggesting it was aliens? Even that, at least, is more reasonable, since no magic is thus required. Perhaps we'll find some big black obelisks out in space?

I'm simply not interested in exploring all these random tangents such as a creator's motivations, it's nature or what else it does.



You're partially correct. You don't need to know the name of the company or the exact machine that made the knife, but you have knowledge of how it was made. You know it was made because you know how it was made. And you know the natural state of "unmade" things. You know that metal and plastic have to be manufactured. We do not, however, know what goes into making a universe. We don't know what an unmade universe looks like, nor anything about it.

So yes, you don't need to know who made it, but you need to know how it was made. What we know of how the universe was made does not suggest any kind of intelligence behind it, and certainly does not suggest a beneficent one over a malicious one. If we knew, for example, that the means to create a universe could not be accomplished by the collapse of a previous one, that would be evidence for outside intervention. A sentient creator is certainly not a self-evident truth of the universe.

I'm fairly certain that common peasants in mid-evil Europe did not need to know anything of how a sword was made to know it was a man-mad thing.

I personally have no idea, not one clue, how a computer processor works, or how to build one. Yet when I see one I know it is created thing.

So, that's why I have no interest in speculating the forces behind the sequence of events. I don't need all the answers to have the few answers I do have. They are not co-dependent.

Genesis gives the exact sequence of events, validated by modern science, of life developing on earth. The only way that ancient civilization could have known that information is if it were given to them by (a) being(s) who are/were significantly superior.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom