Why creationism is a total farse

[atrasicarius]

No, the scientific position is not to take a position on the existence of a creator. No one knows. Moreover, while evolution has proven true, abiogenesis never has been proven to even be possible.

The evidence for a creator is the creation. There is no evidence for Santa Clause, except, perhaps, for the federal government.

Some people do seem to think that the fed is Santa, anyway.

Actually, abiogenesis isn't just possible, it's inevitable. It's been shown that simple compounds will form into complex organic molecules given nothing but time. As I said before, you had an entire ocean of chemicals and millions of years. All it takes is a single molecule capable of replicating itself and mutating, and we already know of certain types of RNA capable of doing that.

Another point: If everything requires a creator, then who created the creator?

 

[sookster]

That question has some prevelance in the book of Genesis. That question we can not fathom, so there is no point in thinking about it.

Why can't we fathom it? My belief is because even God doesn't know how he was created.

I have a question to the hard core scientists, because this is one law that made start to believe that a creator is possible.

"Energy is neither created or destroyed, it is just changing form."

Then why is there energy in the first place?

 

[Dittohead not!]

Actually, abiogenesis isn't just possible, it's inevitable. It's been shown that simple compounds will form into complex organic molecules given nothing but time. As I said before, you had an entire ocean of chemicals and millions of years. All it takes is a single molecule capable of replicating itself and mutating, and we already know of certain types of RNA capable of doing that.

Another point: If everything requires a creator, then who created the creator?

Abiogenesis may be possible, but it never has been proven. No one has, to date, created a living organism from non living matter. Complex proteins, yes, but life, no.

Who created the creator? Now, there's a chicken and egg question brought to a whole new level. Unless the human mind can grasp eternity, we are not capable of understanding that concept.

 

[atrasicarius]

Abiogenesis may be possible, but it never has been proven. No one has, to date, created a living organism from non living matter. Complex proteins, yes, but life, no.

Self replicating molecules could potentially have taken hundreds of thousands or even millions of years to evolve into the first cells. It's not something I would expect to see in a lab. A computer simulation might be able to do it.

Who created the creator? Now, there's a chicken and egg question brought to a whole new level. Unless the human mind can grasp eternity, we are not capable of understanding that concept.

That seems like an dodge to me. If an eternal creator is acceptable, why not an eternal universe or multiverse based on natural principles?

 

[Dittohead not!]

Self replicating molecules could potentially have taken hundreds of thousands or even millions of years to evolve into the first cells.

They could have.

Or, they might not have.

No one really knows for sure.

That seems like an dodge to me. If an eternal creator is acceptable, why not an eternal universe or multiverse based on natural principles?

Why not indeed?

 

[RoccoR]

Re: Why creationism is a total farse

sookster, et al,

My, ---- but you are quite the philosopher, in the ancient Greek sense.

That question we can not fathom, so there is no point in thinking about it.

(COMMENT)

Maybe not so!

We do not understand the concept of infinity. While it make sense from a mathematical perspective, to the scientist, any equation that goes in that direction of infinity, is a paradox. Yet we try to understand it because it makes some intuitive sense and not make sense. It could also be a flaw in our mathematics.

• Why can't we fathom it?

My belief is because even God doesn't know how he was created.​

(COMMENT)

The entire concept of a "Supreme Being" may be just an invention of man.

The way that man thinks, and what makes sense to man is a product of our evolution, physically and mentally.

If the "Supreme Being" doesn't understand itself, then it is not "all-knowing" (Omniscience). The concept of "Omniscience" is a variation of "infinity." We cannot know what it means. While it is an attribute that we normally assign to the something we call a "Supreme Being" - it is something that we can only approximate.

It may be a product of man's imagination.

"Energy is neither created or destroyed, it is just changing form."

Then why is there energy in the first place?

(COMMENT)

We don't fully understand what energy is. What we think is --- that "energy" and "matter" are interchangeable states (ice & water)(E=mc^2 stuff); with Mass related to Gravity (F = G(m1*m2)/d^2 stuff).

For there to be anything else, their must be energy (E).

The question should be:

• Can "energy" be sentient (without a physical form ... without mass)?

Just imagine what the ramifications would be if the answer to this question was:

• YES!

That would lead to an entirely new series of questions pertaining to how interactive the E would be in the universe with the ability to perceive, or be conscious, or have subjective experiences.

• That might even be the illusive "Supreme Being."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[sookster]

I am pretty upset with myself, because I am unable to find a free online documentary that I saw not too long ago on Mathematicians. The reason why I bring this up, is because I feel you would of found it very interesting, as I did. There was a mathematician that understood infinity better than anyone before, and arguably, after him. However, his obsession with infinity eventually drove him into an insane asylum. He visited that institution multiple times before he died.

I think he is testimony to what you said. I feel that we can still describe and learn more about infinity, however I do not think it is possible to totally grasp the concept, as this particular mathematician experienced. (I'm really sorry for not being able to find the video, or remember the name.) You asked, can energy be sentient? Isn't our understanding of energy that at times there is no physical form? For example, let us take average kinetic energy, or otherwise known as temperature. Energy in this context is the movement of atoms and particles. I do not think there would be a particle or substance to account for this movement. And therefore, there is no mass.

However, energy in other states does have a particle and mass, like that of a photon. So to me, it seems energy can have a particle, and sometimes it won't have a particle. For example, dark energy we know is there. Otherwise, why is the universe accelerating in its expansion? There has to be energy somewhere, but we can not describe it at this moment in time. Maybe the dark energy that we sense is energy being put into our universe from our supreme being. I just don't know.

 

[dadman]

Why evolution iis a total farse

atrasicarius = "Self replicating molecules could potentially have taken hundreds of thousands or even millions of years to evolve into the first cells.
It's not something I would expect to see in a lab. A computer simulation might be able to do it."

Then quit teaching evolution in the schools as scientific fact . . . . it's not . . . . continue

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

THIS thread is a farce. There's a reason it's still called the THEORY of evolution.

 

[atrasicarius]

Re: Why evolution iis a total farse

atrasicarius = "Self replicating molecules could potentially have taken hundreds of thousands or even millions of years to evolve into the first cells.
It's not something I would expect to see in a lab. A computer simulation might be able to do it."

Then quit teaching evolution in the schools as scientific fact . . . . it's not . . . . continue

:doh
That was in regard to the theory of abiogenesis, not the theory of evolution. Abiogenesis has a fair amount of indirect evidence, but no direct evidence. Evolution, on the other hand, has enormous amounts of direct evidence.

 

[atrasicarius]

THIS thread is a farce. There's a reason it's still called the THEORY of evolution.

Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There's also the THEORY of gravity, the heliocentric THEORY, the THEORY of relativity, the THEORY of electromagnetism...

 

[Cephus]

THIS thread is a farce. There's a reason it's still called the THEORY of evolution.

Your complete and utter ignorance is showing, which is hardly a surprise. In science, a theory is a series of statements that explains a scientific fact. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution seeks to explain how it functions.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There's also the THEORY of gravity, the heliocentric THEORY, the THEORY of relativity, the THEORY of electromagnetism...

And the germ theory of disease. Excuse me, I'm not feeling well just now. Obviously, someone has given me the evil eye. I'll have to sacrifice a chicken and expunge the demon now.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

Your complete and utter ignorance is showing, which is hardly a surprise. In science, a theory is a series of statements that explains a scientific fact. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution seeks to explain how it functions.

All you just did was prove me right. I asserted it's called the theory of evolution (which I also believe came from divine design) and you just agreed with me. If it were UNDENIABLY a fact, it wouldn't be called the theory anymore. You don't need to call something a theory just to explain how it works.

Thanks for pwning yourself, you're now dismissed.

 

[RoccoR]

(R)IGHTeous 1, et al,

You are confused with what "science" is --- versus --- what "theology" is.

All you just did was prove me right. I asserted it's called the theory of evolution (which I also believe came from divine design) and you just agreed with me. If it were UNDENIABLY a fact, it wouldn't be called the theory anymore. You don't need to call something a theory just to explain how it works.

Thanks for pwning yourself, you're now dismissed.

(COMMENT)

You are hung-up on "facts" --- and "theory."

What is taught in schools is a product of the scientific process, rooted in reality. Man learning though the process of experimentation and objective analysis.

Theology is not the same process. It all starts with a "belief" that someone communicated with a mysterious "Supreme Being" --- or "Divine Wisdom." None of which is reproducible and open to examination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We can see and test objects in the cosmos; we can see and test sub-atomic particles. We can understand the anatomy of living things, we can see the cells divide, we can examine RNA and DNA. We have a crude understanding of the operation of genes. That is science, theory or not. As humanity learns, through the scientific process, it moves forward in a series of successive approximations towards the reality of the universe.

BUT, we cannot find a deity, or reproduce a talking burning bush, or speak to the Supreme Being. We do not yet detect a signature of a Intelligent Designer. There is no evidence of the invisible hand (yet). That is all root in faith and beliefs. It does not move forward. There is no real advancement in theology. It essentially remain eternally in a single state. No testing, and no analysis. If you believe in Christianity, you essentially are focused on a religious following dating back two-to-four millennium; with no real development since that time --- no major event factors that advance the concept.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We all understand that the topic is emotionally charged. But try to stay focused on the target and don't get confused by trying to split hairs on "theory" --- understand the process and the consequences.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[dadman]

Re: Why evolution iis a total farse

atrasicarius = "Self replicating molecules could potentially have taken hundreds of thousands or
even millions of years to evolve into the first cells.
It's not something I would expect to see in a lab.
A computer simulation might be able to do it."

Then quit teaching evolution in the schools as scientific fact . . . . it's not . . . . continue

atrasicarius = "That was in regard to the theory of abiogenesis, not the theory of evolution.
Abiogenesis has a fair amount of indirect evidence, but no direct evidence.
Evolution, on the other hand, has enormous amounts of direct evidence.

micro ( which is not evolution ) has evidence .. NOT macro ( species from other species evolution ) has NO evidence .. meanwhile . . .

Quit teaching MACRO evolution in the schools as scientific fact . . . . it's not . . . . continue

atrasicarius = "There's also the THEORY of gravity, the heliocentric THEORY, the THEORY of relativity,
the THEORY of electromagnetism..." . . . don't forget the THEORY of Intelligent Design . . . you shouldn't feel so threatened .. continue

 

[Dittohead not!]

Re: Why evolution iis a total farse

atrasicarius = "Self replicating molecules could potentially have taken hundreds of thousands or
even millions of years to evolve into the first cells.
It's not something I would expect to see in a lab.
A computer simulation might be able to do it."

Then quit teaching evolution in the schools as scientific fact . . . . it's not . . . . continue

atrasicarius = "That was in regard to the theory of abiogenesis, not the theory of evolution.
Abiogenesis has a fair amount of indirect evidence, but no direct evidence.
Evolution, on the other hand, has enormous amounts of direct evidence.

micro ( which is not evolution ) has evidence .. NOT macro ( species from other species evolution ) has NO evidence .. meanwhile . . .

Quit teaching MACRO evolution in the schools as scientific fact . . . . it's not . . . . continue

atrasicarius = "There's also the THEORY of gravity, the heliocentric THEORY, the THEORY of relativity,
the THEORY of electromagnetism..." . . . don't forget the THEORY of Intelligent Design . . . you shouldn't feel so threatened .. continue

Evolution is a scientific theory.

Creation is a philosophical position.

Two totally different things.

 

[Cephus]

All you just did was prove me right. I asserted it's called the theory of evolution (which I also believe came from divine design) and you just agreed with me. If it were UNDENIABLY a fact, it wouldn't be called the theory anymore. You don't need to call something a theory just to explain how it works.

Thanks for pwning yourself, you're now dismissed.

Thanks for proving yourself ignorant. People have shown you the dictionary definition of the term. Sorry you don't own a dictionary. :roll:

 

[dadman]

Re: Why evolution iis a total farse

Dittohead not = "Creation is a philosophical position" . . . . no ..
there is scientific evidence that leads to the THEORY of Intelligent Design ..
philosophy has nothing to do with it .. you should not fear education

 

[Verthaine]

Re: Why evolution iis a total farse

Dittohead not = "Creation is a philosophical position" . . . . no ..
there is scientific evidence that leads to the THEORY of Intelligent Design ..
philosophy has nothing to do with it .. you should not fear education

Can you supply the evidence?

 

[Redress]

Re: Why evolution iis a total farse

Dittohead not = "Creation is a philosophical position" . . . . no ..
there is scientific evidence that leads to the THEORY of Intelligent Design ..
philosophy has nothing to do with it .. you should not fear education

Why do you keep linking to a random forum?

 

[Cephus]

Re: Why evolution iis a total farse

Can you supply the evidence?

dadman has no evidence for anything, ever.

 

[RoccoR]

Re: Why evolution iis a total farse

dadman, et al,

I'm a pretty open-minded --- teach me.

no ..
there is scientific evidence that leads to the THEORY of Intelligent Design ..
philosophy has nothing to do with it .. you should not fear

(COMMENT)

Less: Zechariah 12 .. ( 470-520 BC ) and the "Toothpick" analogy (probability).

However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps it involves, given enough time, it will almost certainly happen at least once. And for life as we know it, once may be enough. Time is the hero of the plot…. Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible becomes probable, and the probable becomes virtually certain. One has only to wait; time itself performs miracles (Wald, p. 48, emp. added).

Remember: We are dealing with 14,000,000,000 years as the probable time period.

I suggest that we stick to the evidence - or - near evidence; or even any series of successive approximations that follow the scientific process. I will listen - and - I am interested.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Verthaine]

Re: Why evolution iis a total farse

dadman, et al,

I'm a pretty open-minded --- teach me.

​

(COMMENT)

Less: Zechariah 12 .. ( 470-520 BC ) and the "Toothpick" analogy (probability).

​

Remember: We are dealing with 14,000,000,000 years as the probable time period.

I suggest that we stick to the evidence - or - near evidence; or even any series of successive approximations that follow the scientific process. I will listen - and - I am interested.

Most Respectfully,
R

I fully agree,and I would like to add that in the Hugh Everett's Many-Worlds Interpretation Mode (i.e the Multiverse Model) ,those toothpicks has in at least one universe.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Re: Why evolution iis a total farse

Can you supply the evidence?

There is no evidence.

The choice is to believe that the incredibly diverse and well ordered webs of life that exist on this planet all came about on their own, with no one starting the process nor guiding it along the way, or

to believe that there is an intelligence greater than man's behind it all.

There is no proof one way or the other. You can talk about "probabilities" all you want, but it is meaningless when you don't factor in the role of natural selection. You can make either/or arguments that posit that evolution proves that the first option is the only one, but there is nothing in the theory that says life evolved all on its own.

So, the choice of option 1 or option 2 is a matter of philosophical position. Both require faith. Neither are proven.