Why creationism is a total farse

[RoccoR]

Re: Why evolution iis a total farse

CarlF, et al,

I am not a believer in "creationism."

While I see your point, I respectfully disagree in part.

It certainly disproves creationism. And that's what this thread is about, not a higher power in general.

(COMMENT)

I will agree that it challenges the fundamentalist calculations, made by Biblical Evangelists, that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. We are in agreement on that.

But id does not disprove "Intelligence Design" or that a "Supreme Being" created the the Universe or man (Creationism in a broader context); which is the greater idea to which they hold.

While I do not hold that either is valid, neither can be proved or disproved; based on what we know now.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Paschendale]

Re: Why evolution iis a total farse

Science largely doesn't deal with why things exist, only how they exist. The problem with ID is not that it supposes a supreme creator. The problem is that in supposing this, it also supposes the actual science on HOW the world came to be, and how life on it came to be, are false. That's the problem. There is absolutely no reason that a supreme creator could not have set in motion the physical laws of the universe, and even created evolution. But the problem with ID is that it does not promote "creator plus science". It promotes mysticism, and an unknowable universe. It disregards science in favor of biblical legend. Life did not magically appear, the world is not six thousand years old. The biblical account is wrong. None of this precludes a god figure.

God and science are not beyond reconciliation. Of course, the debate of whether or not science suggests god's existence or not is an issue for another day.

 

[CarlF]

Re: Why evolution iis a total farse

CarlF, et al,

I am not a believer in "creationism."

While I see your point, I respectfully disagree in part.

​

(COMMENT)

I will agree that it challenges the fundamentalist calculations, made by Biblical Evangelists, that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. We are in agreement on that.

But id does not disprove "Intelligence Design" or that a "Supreme Being" created the the Universe or man (Creationism in a broader context); which is the greater idea to which they hold.

While I do not hold that either is valid, neither can be proved or disproved; based on what we know now.

Most Respectfully,
R

Really?

Does it have to be perfectly dis-proven for it for it to be pointless to believe in? Do I have to go out of my way to completely "disprove" every single of the hundreds of thousands of religions that man has concocted before we can finally dismiss them all?

You can't disprove something like that because there isn't even a way to prove it. So your whole point about carbon dating not actually "disproving" the concept of intelligent design has no meaning. It's pointless. It's like saying that I can't "disprove" that santa claus isn't real, so you're going to have to be neutral on the santa claus issue.

Unless you're talking about this in a broader sense, outside of man made religion like Christianity, and more in the realm of deism, then your argument seems pointless to me.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Re: Why evolution iis a total farse

Intelligence? How do we define intelligence? Simple bacteria respond to stimuli. Is that intelligence?

Of course not. Intelligence is self aware. Intelligence creates what didn't exist before. Humans can create what didn't exist except in our imaginations, much as the world must have been created from the imagination of a superior being, or beings.

This is kind of a bad example. Tomatos naturally grow where they are best suited for. By bringing you in and discussing the tomato we are no longer actually discussing life's capacity to grow and change on its own.



But you are changing its enviroment away from what it normally grows it.

No, I am changing the environment to something it can grow in naturally. It wouldn't be able to grow without my changing the environment, at least not in my back yard. It is not well adapted to the natural environment.

And, it is a good analogy. I set up the conditions in which the tomato plant can grow, but I did not create the plant.

Much as a creator may have set up the conditions for evolution to have created life on Earth. There is nothing in evolution t hat says it had to have been all a series of accidents. It could have been set up and guided along the way.

This is a philosophical stance, of course, as there is no scientific proof of a creator. It just seems a lot more likely that intelligence created intelligence than that random events created it.

From something far more simplier.

Of course. Starting with blue green algae.

 

[obvious Child]

Re: Why evolution iis a total farse

Of course not. Intelligence is self aware. Intelligence creates what didn't exist before.

Whoa. That is a big assumption. Do islands owe their existence to the "intelligence" of a oceanic volcano?

Humans can create what didn't exist except in our imaginations, much as the world must have been created from the imagination of a superior being, or beings.

See my example above.

No, I am changing the environment to something it can grow in naturally.

Not quite. You are changing your existing climate to match the client tomato naturally grows it. That doesn't address the original point, thereby rendering the example poor.

It wouldn't be able to grow without my changing the environment, at least not in my back yard. It is not well adapted to the natural environment.

Correction. To the natural environment where you live. Not the natural environment in general.

And, it is a good analogy. I set up the conditions in which the tomato plant can grow, but I did not create the plant.

But you did not setup the original conditions in which the precursor species evolved into. You are just manipulating your conditions to match what it has evolved to grow in. Thus why it's a poor example.

Much as a creator may have set up the conditions for evolution to have created life on Earth. There is nothing in evolution t hat says it had to have been all a series of accidents. It could have been set up and guided along the way.

It is possible, but no more likely then merely the outcome of natural environmental pressures and chemical reactions. Occam's Razor tends to reject magical based solutions as they are the most overly complicated answer. Now, I'm not saying it's impossible.

This is a philosophical stance, of course, as there is no scientific proof of a creator. It just seems a lot more likely that intelligence created intelligence than that random events created it.

Not necessarily. It really depends how you define intelligence. Your current argument dictates that islands that did not exist before owe their existence to the "intelligence" of a oceanic volcano. I'm not sure that makes much sense.

 

[RoccoR]

Re: Why evolution iis a total farse

CarlF, et al,

In part.

Really?

Does it have to be perfectly dis-proven for it for it to be pointless to believe in? Do I have to go out of my way to completely "disprove" every single of the hundreds of thousands of religions that man has concocted before we can finally dismiss them all?

(COMMENT)

Re: Why evolution is a total farce (or not!).

When Kepler proposed the Heliocentric idea, it wasn't perfectly correct either. But Kepler's ideas are very important and were instrumental in helping us get to the point that Newton was able to refine planetary motion through gravitational force.

No, you don't have to prove every single thing wrong. In fact, if it is wrong, it will sink away naturally. But even the incorrect ideas establish a history of what we've examined and why we discounted it. It also establishes a history of how religious fundamentalist view the known science and their dedication to ancient ideas written in a time when the four elements of the universe were Earth, Wind, Fire and Water.

Really?You can't disprove something like that because there isn't even a way to prove it. So your whole point about carbon dating not actually "disproving" the concept of intelligent design has no meaning. It's pointless. It's like saying that I can't "disprove" that santa claus isn't real, so you're going to have to be neutral on the santa claus issue.

(COMMENT)

Well, I won't get into the philosophy of science with you. I was merely responding to you initial comment.

Whether or not the idea of "Intelligence Design" (ID) can be disproved is not nearly as important as --- that we examine the concept that the universe is a product of a Supreme Being which has left evidence of its existence imbedded in the creation.

It is also important to remember that the idea of science is not to disprove the concept, but to learn the how the universe works and developed. If ID is ultimately discovered or rejected, at the end of the exercise - is of no consequence in comparison to the ascent for knowledge.

Unless you're talking about this in a broader sense, outside of man made religion like Christianity, and more in the realm of deism, then your argument seems pointless to me.

(COMMENT)

My comment had nothing to do with religion, or belief structures. I had to do with, whether or not ID, creationism or "evolution" (topical supra) were affect, by the TME (Carbon Dating Instrumentation) outcomes, in any tangible way. My conclusion was that they were not.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Dittohead not!]

Re: Why evolution iis a total farse

Whoa. That is a big assumption. Do islands owe their existence to the "intelligence" of a oceanic volcano?



See my example above.

No, of course not. Islands are a part of the Earth, which was created by intelligence. Cities owe their existence to intelligence, ours. Cities did not exist prior to human civilization, except in our imagination. The same is true of all of the machines we now take for granted.

Not quite. You are changing your existing climate to match the client tomato naturally grows it. That doesn't address the original point, thereby rendering the example poor.

Correct. I did not create the tomato plant. God created it through evolution. I just set up the conditions in which it could thrive.

Much as god set up the conditions in which we could thrive.

But you did not setup the original conditions in which the precursor species evolved into. You are just manipulating your conditions to match what it has evolved to grow in. Thus why it's a poor example.

No, I didn't do that. Others before me manipulated the tomato plant genome to produce something that we like, starting with a wild plant that wasn't quite as desirable. Humans caused the tomato plant to evolve into what it is today by manipulating natural selection. We've done the same with many sorts of animals: Pigs, cows, horses, etc. All are quite different from their wild ancestors due to our tinkering with the process of evolution.

It is possible, but no more likely then merely the outcome of natural environmental pressures and chemical reactions. Occam's Razor tends to reject magical based solutions as they are the most overly complicated answer. Now, I'm not saying it's impossible.

No, it's not impossible, and "magic" is a poor definition of intelligence. Just what is magic, anyway? It seems to me that many of the things we currently take for granted would have been thought of as magic just a few hundred years ago.

Not necessarily. It really depends how you define intelligence. Your current argument dictates that islands that did not exist before owe their existence to the "intelligence" of a oceanic volcano. I'm not sure that makes much sense.

Islands are a poor example. They may have been created simply due to natural forces. Of course, those natural forces had to have been set up in one way or another. How about the computer you are typing on now, was it created by intelligence? Did someone have to imagine what it might be like before it was created? Things that humans have created through our intelligence started out as imagination, i.e., didn't exist in the real world until we created them. In the same way, it is possible that the Earth on which we stand, including those islands, existed first in the imagination of an intelligence superior to ours.

 

[atrasicarius]

Re: Why evolution iis a total farse

Correct. I did not create the tomato plant. God created it through evolution. I just set up the conditions in which it could thrive.

Much as god set up the conditions in which we could thrive.

Exactly which conditions are you referring to?

 

[Dittohead not!]

Re: Why evolution iis a total farse

Exactly which conditions are you referring to?

Well, we have a planet in the so called "Goldilocks" position, neither too hot nor too cold. We therefore have liquid water, and a water cycle to allow life on land to survive. We have an atmosphere that is thick enough to breathe, yet thin enough to keep that water cycle going. We have enough oxygen, created by green plants before animals could start to live here. We have a planet that has had life for many millions of years, thus creating vast beds of coal and reservoirs of oil necessary for the beginning of an industrial age. We have bodies that evolved with big enough brains and with arms and hands necessary to create civilization. We have the power of speech, which has led to written language, which is essential for the progress of civilization.

Of course, all of that could have happened by random chance. Intelligence could have simply sprung unbidden from the primordial ooze, just as many believe happened.

The odds are, however, that intelligence set up the conditions necessary for intelligent life.

 

[atrasicarius]

Re: Why evolution iis a total farse

Well, we have a planet in the so called "Goldilocks" position, neither too hot nor too cold. We therefore have liquid water, and a water cycle to allow life on land to survive. We have an atmosphere that is thick enough to breathe, yet thin enough to keep that water cycle going. We have enough oxygen, created by green plants before animals could start to live here. We have a planet that has had life for many millions of years, thus creating vast beds of coal and reservoirs of oil necessary for the beginning of an industrial age. We have bodies that evolved with big enough brains and with arms and hands necessary to create civilization. We have the power of speech, which has led to written language, which is essential for the progress of civilization.

Of course, all of that could have happened by random chance. Intelligence could have simply sprung unbidden from the primordial ooze, just as many believe happened.

The odds are, however, that intelligence set up the conditions necessary for intelligent life.

Ever heard the anecdote about the puddle that says, "Gee, it sure is lucky that this hole in the ground is exactly the same shape as I am. It must have been designed especially for me!"? We exist here because it's possible for us to exist here. If it weren't possible, then we wouldn't be around to discuss the issue at all. As I've said before, the universe is a really big place. It's a statistical certainty that there would be somewhere with the appropriate conditions. Everything else is just a product of evolution.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Re: Why evolution iis a total farse

Ever heard the anecdote about the puddle that says, "Gee, it sure is lucky that this hole in the ground is exactly the same shape as I am. It must have been designed especially for me!"? We exist here because it's possible for us to exist here. If it weren't possible, then we wouldn't be around to discuss the issue at all. As I've said before, the universe is a really big place. It's a statistical certainty that there would be somewhere with the appropriate conditions. Everything else is just a product of evolution.

If life really evolves to fit the conditions, rather than conditions being just right for life to evolve, then there must be some really bizarre life forms. That is possible, of course. That methane cycle on, where was it? Uranus? as an example. Perhaps there are methane based life forms that depend on liquid methane, just as we depend on liquid water to survive.

Still, intelligence springing up all on its own? That seems to me to be an even more unlikely supposition than the idea that intelligence is behind the creation of intelligent life.

Of course, we could argue the point for the next 99 years, and never come to a conclusion. The fact is, no one knows.

 

[atrasicarius]

Re: Why evolution iis a total farse

If life really evolves to fit the conditions, rather than conditions being just right for life to evolve, then there must be some really bizarre life forms. That is possible, of course. That methane cycle on, where was it? Uranus? as an example. Perhaps there are methane based life forms that depend on liquid methane, just as we depend on liquid water to survive.

Still, intelligence springing up all on its own? That seems to me to be an even more unlikely supposition than the idea that intelligence is behind the creation of intelligent life.

Of course, we could argue the point for the next 99 years, and never come to a conclusion. The fact is, no one knows.

Bizarreness is in the eye of the beholder. To an alien that had never seen a tree before, trees would probably look really weird. As for the other, citing intelligence as the source of intelligence causes an infinite regression. Where did the first intelligence come from? I'm satisfied with a natural explanation for it, especially looking at semi-sentient creatures like dolphins or chimps.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Re: Why evolution iis a total farse

Bizarreness is in the eye of the beholder. To an alien that had never seen a tree before, trees would probably look really weird. As for the other, citing intelligence as the source of intelligence causes an infinite regression. Where did the first intelligence come from? I'm satisfied with a natural explanation for it, especially looking at semi-sentient creatures like dolphins or chimps.

The idea of god is more plausible if we posit that it has always existed. Otherwise, we get into the conundrum you have mentioned: Just where did the original intelligence come from?

If matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it follows that they have always existed. They may not have existed in the same form we find them now, but they must have always existed. In a similar way, intelligence may have always existed as well.

 

[scourge99]

Re: Why evolution iis a total farse

The idea of god is more plausible if we posit that it has always existed. Otherwise, we get into the conundrum you have mentioned: Just where did the original intelligence come from?

except we have evidence of arising intelligence as oppossed to the pure speculation and conjecture you present of infinitely existing intelligence. what you are doing is analogous to speculating on the dietary habits of unicorns.

If matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it follows that they have always existed. They may not have existed in the same form we find them now, but they must have always existed. In a similar way, intelligence may have always existed as well.

CF101: Origin of the Universe

Claim CF101: The first law of thermodynamics says matter/energy cannot come from nothing. Therefore, the universe itself could not have formed naturally. (See also CE440: Origin of everything.)

Source: Brown, Walt, 1995. In the beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 21.

Response: 1. Formation of the universe from nothing need not violate conservation of energy. The gravitational potential energy of a gravitational field is a negative energy. When all the gravitational potential energy is added to all the other energy in the universe, it might sum to zero (Guth 1997, 9-12,271-276; Tryon 1973).

References: 1. Guth, Alan H., 1997. (see below) 2. Tryon, Edward P., 1973. Is the universe a vacuum fluctuation? Nature 246: 396-397.

CE440: The origin of it all

Claim CE440: Cosmologists cannot explain where space, time, energy, and the laws of physics came from.

Source: Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 20.

Response: 1. Some questions are harder to answer than others. But although we do not have a full understanding of the origin of the universe, we are not completely in the dark. We know, for example, that space comes from the expansion of the universe. The total energy of the universe may be zero. Cosmologists have hypotheses for the other questions that are consistent with observations (Hawking 2001). For example, it is possible that there is more than one dimension of time, the other dimension being unbounded, so there is no overall origin of time. Another possibility is that the universe is in an eternal cycle without beginning or end. Each big bang might end in a big crunch to start a new cycle (Steinhardt and Turok 2002) or at long intervals, our universe collides with a mirror universe, creating the universe anew (Seife 2002). One should keep in mind that our experiences in everyday life are poor preparation for the extreme and bizarre conditions one encounters in cosmology. The stuff cosmologists deal with is very hard to understand. To reject it because of that, though, would be to retreat into the argument from incredulity.

2. Creationists cannot explain origins at all. Saying "God did it" is not an explanation, because it is not tied to any objective evidence. It does not rule out any possibility or even any impossibility. It does not address questions of "how" and "why," and it raises questions such as "which God?" and "how did God originate?" In the explaining game, cosmologists are far out in front.

References: 1. Hawking, Stephen, 2001. The Universe in a Nutshell. New York: Bantam. 2. Seife, Charles, 2002. Eternal-universe idea comes full circle. Science 296: 639. 3. Steinhardt, P. J. and N. Turok, 2002. A cyclic model of the universe. Science 296: 1436-1439.

 

[atrasicarius]

Re: Why evolution iis a total farse

The idea of god is more plausible if we posit that it has always existed. Otherwise, we get into the conundrum you have mentioned: Just where did the original intelligence come from?

If matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it follows that they have always existed. They may not have existed in the same form we find them now, but they must have always existed. In a similar way, intelligence may have always existed as well.

That's a fairly interesting argument, but it doesn't work unless we've already established that only intelligence can create intelligence. As I said, looking at how there's an obvious progression from non-sentient creatures like insects to semi-sentient creatures like mammals to us, I don't see why evolution isn't an acceptable explanation for the existence of intelligence.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Re: Why evolution iis a total farse

That's a fairly interesting argument, but it doesn't work unless we've already established that only intelligence can create intelligence. As I said, looking at how there's an obvious progression from non-sentient creatures like insects to semi-sentient creatures like mammals to us, I don't see why evolution isn't an acceptable explanation for the existence of intelligence.

There is such a progression, no doubt, but the real question is this: Did it all happen of its own accord, or was it a part of a higher plan?

We know that like produces like, so why doesn't it follow that intelligence produces intelligence? The alternative is to believe that intelligence sprang from nothing, and that it goes back to nothing when our bodies die.

 

[dadman]

Re: Why evolution iis a total farse



It would be good for the evolution "scientists" to catch up with the ID scientists ..
their fear of the conclusion keeps them from being honest with the evidence ..
when man is dishonest with natural revelation ..
he will never be trusted with special revelation

 

[atrasicarius]

Re: Why evolution iis a total farse

There is such a progression, no doubt, but the real question is this: Did it all happen of its own accord, or was it a part of a higher plan?

We know that like produces like, so why doesn't it follow that intelligence produces intelligence? The alternative is to believe that intelligence sprang from nothing, and that it goes back to nothing when our bodies die.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. I think it's fair to say that our brains didn't need any kind of divine intervention to evolve. Do you think intelligence comes from somewhere else?

 

[SingleCellOrganism]

I can't think of a single situation in human affairs, concerning intelligence, whereby intelligence simply 'happens'.

The real question in my mind is how can you defend the tremendous complexity in the universe as as pure coincidence when everything we experience indicates the opposite.

CPUs aren't built, they are designed; and a CPU is dramatically less incredible than the human brain. Is there ever a scenario whereby a CPU would magically form itself?

The idea that organic protein initiated evolution led to RNA et al is preposterous IMO.

 

[atrasicarius]

I can't think of a single situation in human affairs, concerning intelligence, whereby intelligence simply 'happens'.

The real question in my mind is how can you defend the tremendous complexity in the universe as as pure coincidence when everything we experience indicates the opposite.

CPUs aren't built, they are designed; and a CPU is dramatically less incredible than the human brain. Is there ever a scenario whereby a CPU would magically form itself?

The idea that organic protein initiated evolution led to RNA et al is preposterous IMO.

Already covered this, man. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's impossible. That's called argument from incredulity. CPU's can't reproduce.

 

[SingleCellOrganism]

Alternatively, as opposed to not 'understanding', I simply don't accept that explanation.

The generally accepted idea about the 'beginning' of life on earth is that lightning created a protein reaction in primordial soup.

If you accept that no worries; I just don't.

edit: I just realized that this thread is about 'creationism', of which I disagree with, I simply agree that the universe I witness and understand requires an intelligent creator as the progenitor.

 

[atrasicarius]

Alternatively, as opposed to not 'understanding', I simply don't accept that explanation.

The generally accepted idea about the 'beginning' of life on earth is that lightning created a protein reaction in primordial soup.

If you accept that no worries; I just don't.

edit: I just realized that this thread is about 'creationism', of which I disagree with, I simply agree that the universe I witness and understand requires an intelligent creator as the progenitor.

So exactly where do you think the creator is needed? At the big bang, or for abiogenesis, or for the human brain? Or for all three?

 

[SingleCellOrganism]

I understand organic chemistry beyond the lay-level, but won't presume to know something I don't.

Whether God initiated the big bang and then prodded RNA into formation or mapped out DNA for each 'kind' of animal is irrelevant; what is in front of my eyes is wondrous complexity the likes of which causes my neurons to percolate.

The idea that everything exists because of random chance and 'just because' flies in the face of my life experience and reason. Not to mention the intention I see in all things, each filling in a gap, each depending on the other.

Could 1,000 monkeys type a coherent book given eternity. Nope.

 

[atrasicarius]

I understand organic chemistry beyond the lay-level, but won't presume to know something I don't.

Whether God initiated the big bang and then prodded RNA into formation or mapped out DNA for each 'kind' of animal is irrelevant; what is in front of my eyes is wondrous complexity the likes of which causes my neurons to percolate.

The idea that everything exists because of random chance and 'just because' flies in the face of my life experience and reason. Not to mention the intention I see in all things, each filling in a gap, each depending on the other.

Could 1,000 monkeys type a coherent book given eternity. Nope.

What you're arguing against there is evolution, not abiogenesis. Check out this video, it does a pretty good job of explaining things.

 

[SingleCellOrganism]

That video is comic genius. It proves that someone can write enough code to cause a series of logical steps to create a clock.

So, in this case, God is the coder.