Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
betsy

Creation

Recommended Posts

Did you read my post? Maybe He did, maybe he didn't. We don't know.

Doesn't matter, 'cuz that's not the real argument the Intelligent Designers are pushing anyway. They reject the idea of a Big Bang for one reason only - it contradicts the stories from Genesis that they've already chosen to believe.

The "Church of the Presumptuous Assumption", if you like.

I reject the Big Bang theory because of the odds in the Cosmic Casino...

Sucker bet....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reject the Big Bang theory because of the odds in the Cosmic Casino...

Sucker bet....

The odds are actually seem excellent to me, and I would wager that theres billions of other life forms in the universe that were also created the same way.

Mostly though I reject creationism because its intellectually lazy. Science in this area is certainly lacking, and humans are no better equipped to understand these things, than a fish whos entire universe is an aquarium is. I guess to them the relatively gigantic and omnipotent beings that they can see moving around on the other side of the glass must be "god".

But it represents our best efforts to actually do the hard work required to maybe one day understand more, instead of just lazily declaring... "it must have been god".

If theres some sort of consciousness involved then maybe one day well figure that out, but in the mean time all you have is very wild guesses that arent really based on anything besides what some other humans told you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps God created the big bang theory for us to better understand Him and His work.

Yup! Perhaps red headed midget amputee riding a bright orange tricycle did too!

Serving God is the reason for our existence, everything else is sin.

Preposterious. Thats an entirely human construct thats relatively well understood. Whether or not a diety exists we know that human religions, and the various aspects and mythologies involved are bunk. We know what human religions are, how theyve evolved, and why they form. If there IS a conscious entity driving the universe then it most certainly has nothing to do with any human religions which again are entirely human constructs that we have a habit of inventing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, for a start, that watch did NOT come to happen in a quick explosion. We had the explosion and it took about 11 BILLION YEARS of things coming together to make that watch happen!

Moreoever, while the creation of life took the larger first part of those 11 billion years, once it happened things were no longer entirely random. Some things work better than others once the groundwork has been prepared. Once mankind came on the picture, things started to develop at a HUGELY faster rate! We went from sundials to inventing that watch within a couple of hundred years, because there were all sorts of people all over the place busy inventing and developing all the pieces necessary to make that watch.

This is MUCH different than your analogy paints!

There are other points to argue as well but those aren't the real issue anyway. It's been my experience over the years that those who favour Intelligent Design are guilty of trying to have things both ways, eating their cake and having it too. That's just illogical.

Why do I say that? First of all, virtually all of them are not just trying to prove the existence of God. Whether God exists or not is irrelevant to how the Universe came to be and how it works. It is what it is and we may never be capable of understanding all of it. The existence of God is not necessary to explain it. He may have started it all off or it may have been random chance. The result is the same.

No, what the proponents of Intelligent Design seem always to be pushing, once you scratch the surface of their arguments, is a literal acceptance not just of their Faith but of their interpretation of their Bible. They don't just want God to be accepted as real and the Creator of the Universe. They want it accepted that he did it the way THEY say He did! No evolution, no dinosaurs, just Adam and Eve chomping apples in some mythical garden.

This idea of telling God how he did his works has always struck me as incredibly arrogant and presumptuous! A bunch of people barely out of the caves, wearing skins and scratching their asses come up with some stories to explain how the universe came to be and a few thousand years later their descendants are still taking it as truth and gospel!

If someone wants a discussion solely and only about the possibility of a Prime Mover I could enjoy it. What I can't abide is someone who really just wants to use that idea to get his foot in the door to justify his collection of tribal myths and fantasies that outright contradict the evidence that Science keeps discovering every day!

Science does not contradict ANYTHING on how a God may have created the Universe and set up its Laws of Operation! The only contradictions are with what some people chose to believe in ADVANCE of those discoveries!

To put my own views more succinctly Betsy, although I personally am a 'devout agnostic' I can get along with someone who believes in a God just fine!

What I can't abide is someone who rejects the continuing unfolding of evidence as to how the Universe began and endures because he feels that his simplistic little book of myths has given him all the answers, somehow making it unnecessary for him to actually learn any Science, Math or Physics!

It's no shame to be ignorant or math challenged, but it is a shame to use some prop to be arrogant!

You should cite your sources. Most of us have already read Dawkins et al. The mantra is becoming tiresome. If they're not prepared to provide reasonable evidence that God does not exist, they should at least provide reasonable evidence to support their theories as to how the universe and life did begin. It's really not my concern whether they believe in God - what they believe doesn't change the truth. But atheists should accept the fact that their god - science - is turning on them. he is showing them that the universe did begin. It hasn't always been there. he even lets them call it the "big bang."

As for the evolutionary theories, they would've been dropped a hundred years ago had atheists not been so determined to avoid God. Just come up with a viable theory to explain how life began, never mind God. That's all that's required of atheists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should cite your sources. Most of us have already read Dawkins et al. The mantra is becoming tiresome. If they're not prepared to provide reasonable evidence that God does not exist, they should at least provide reasonable evidence to support their theories as to how the universe and life did begin. It's really not my concern whether they believe in God - what they believe doesn't change the truth. But atheists should accept the fact that their god - science - is turning on them. he is showing them that the universe did begin. It hasn't always been there. he even lets them call it the "big bang."

As for the evolutionary theories, they would've been dropped a hundred years ago had atheists not been so determined to avoid God. Just come up with a viable theory to explain how life began, never mind God. That's all that's required of atheists.

Well done, Betsy. You successfully ignored and avoided every point I made! I thought I was quite careful to take no stand on whether or not there is a God. You made that the point of your rebuttal and ignored everything else I had said.

Tell us the truth. Do you believe in the Genesis stories of the Bible? Do you also feel you already know how God did everything and anything, making every new Science discovery a contradiction to your faith?

Are YOU one of those who tells God how he did his works?

Edited by Wild Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good thing that God revelaed itself,because what is written by some of His self-proclaimed defenders would be enough to make an atheist out of me ;-)

If they're not prepared to provide reasonable evidence that God does not exist, they should at least provide reasonable evidence to support their theories as to how the universe and life did begin.

Demanding people to prove the non-existence of something, or someone, or god, is illogical. Non-existence cannot be proven.

As for the evidence supporting the Big Bang Theory, or the evolution of species... it's there for anyone to see. That atheist admit that they do not know what was before the Big bang does not change that the Big Bang did occur.

But atheists should accept the fact that their god - science - is turning on them.

Science is noone's God, and noone is cliaming it is. As for science turning on atheists... To believe that, one would have to believe that science and faith are opposite to each other... Interstingly enough, a misconception you share with at least a few atheists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done, Betsy. You successfully ignored and avoided every point I made!

with your reply:

Well, for a start, that watch did NOT come to happen in a quick explosion. We had the explosion and it took about 11 BILLION YEARS of things coming together to make that watch happen!

Moreoever, while the creation of life took the larger first part of those 11 billion years, once it happened things were no longer entirely random. Some things work better than others once the groundwork has been prepared. Once mankind came on the picture, things started to develop at a HUGELY faster rate! We went from sundials to inventing that watch within a couple of hundred years, because there were all sorts of people all over the place busy inventing and developing all the pieces necessary to make that watch.

This is MUCH different than your analogy paints!

Looks like you had a front row seat when it all began! :)

Of course I believe that there's more to the fine-tuning of the universe than just chance. It's not my theory. I read it. Just like you did.

But if it's not chance and it isn't - mathematicians had shown that the odds are totally impossible, etc. - cosmologists indicate that there was in fact a beginning of the universe, it hasn't been here eternally.

If it's not chance, what are the other options? Intelligent Design, anybody? Any other suggestions?

I thought I was quite careful to take no stand on whether or not there is a God. You made that the point of your rebuttal and ignored everything else I had said.

I remember saying I don't care in fact whether you believe there is a God. Anyway, I was addressing atheists....

Tell us the truth. Do you believe in the Genesis stories of the Bible?

Yes. I don't have to defend my belief in the Scriptures. That's not the question here. The question seems to have come to be, how did the universe begin?

I, like many scientists today, can see how clearly the creation story in Genesis describes the framework of 21st century science.

Do you also feel you already know how God did everything and anything, making every new Science discovery a contradiction to your faith?

Since you brought up God.....of course I don't know God's mind. But I do know science since 1929 has increasingly supported the existence of a first-cause. If you think that's contradicting my faith, I can understand why you're not a believer. :)

I'm accepting your geological knowledge. What was is. None of what you said refutes the probability of a Divine Mover.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good thing that God revelaed itself,because what is written by some of His self-proclaimed defenders would be enough to make an atheist out of me ;-)

Demanding people to prove the non-existence of something, or someone, or god, is illogical. Non-existence cannot be proven.

I didn't say to prove it. I said provide evidence.

As for the evidence supporting the Big Bang Theory, or the evolution of species... it's there for anyone to see. That atheist admit that they do not know what was before the Big bang does not change that the Big Bang did occur.

Nobody's refuting that the Big Bang did not occur. But atheists see what they want to see, and avoid what they want to avoid.

Do you believe there was nothing before? Oh I don't expect you to fall for that. :)

Creating this universe from nothing will be more than amazing. What do you think was there before? I imagine what I believe was there before is more probable. Science and Philosophy back me up. To say nothing of the Bible.

Science is noone's God, and noone is cliaming it is.

Oh then it's Dawkins...and all his goddettes? :)

As for science turning on atheists... To believe that, one would have to believe that science and faith are opposite to each other... Interstingly enough, a misconception you share with at least a few atheists.

I'm not entirely clear what you're saying here but perhaps I shouldn't have been so figurative. Let me put it another way. The scientific evidence that atheists rely on is no longer as supportive of the atheistic view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Betsy Before this discussion continues, may I ask you what an 'atheist' is ?

Is it someone who doesn't believe in God ? Or someone who believes there is no God ?

believes there's no God.

If he believes there is a God, but doesn't believe in God, what does he believe in? Defying God?

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should cite your sources. Most of us have already read Dawkins et al. The mantra is becoming tiresome. If they're not prepared to provide reasonable evidence that God does not exist, they should at least provide reasonable evidence to support their theories as to how the universe and life did begin. It's really not my concern whether they believe in God - what they believe doesn't change the truth. But atheists should accept the fact that their god - science - is turning on them. he is showing them that the universe did begin. It hasn't always been there. he even lets them call it the "big bang."

As for the evolutionary theories, they would've been dropped a hundred years ago had atheists not been so determined to avoid God. Just come up with a viable theory to explain how life began, never mind God. That's all that's required of atheists.

If they're not prepared to provide reasonable evidence that God does not exist, they should at least provide reasonable evidence to support their theories as to how the universe and life did begin.

Why? Evidence will be provided as and when its found just like it always has been.

As for the evolutionary theories, they would've been dropped a hundred years ago

No thats just silly, sorry. You reject evolution for no other reason than you find it incompatible with what you want to believe. This same kind of conflict has been playing itself out for hundreds of years.

Lemme tell you a little story.

In 1615 the Church, through the Spanish Inquisition, forced Galileo to denounce his findings and forced him never to teach what he had discovered. But his work went on. Nearly 20 years later in 1633, Galileo again published his findings on the observed orbits of the planets and again the Spanish Inquisition was called into action. But they refused even to look through Galileos telescope, as they thought the devil could create illusions with such an instrument.

Youre trying to do the same thing evolution that the church in the 1600's did when Galileo published his theories on planetary orbits. They saw it as a threat, and they not only refused to accept it, but they tried to crush it, and suppress it.

Your rejection of modern day science is just a modern day version of that same story. Youre ALSO scared to look through Galileo's telescope because youre ALSO afraid and threatened by what you might see.

But youre fighting a losing game. Eventually Christians accepted Galileos teachings... it just took a long time. And more and more Christians are accepting evolution today as well.

People are looking through that telescope Betsy! Why doncha have a little peek? :ph34r:

Edited by dre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

believes there's no God.

If he believes there is a God, but doesn't believe in God, what does he believe in? Defying God?

I've often said if there really is a God, She can expect an awful earful from me come Judgement Day.

I have a host of issues...take rust for example...who in their right mind would also say "let there be rust" when they created the world? Rust has got to be the clearest evidence against intelligent design there ever was.

It's like the Designer never ran things by a focus group before releasing the final product or ever tried using it Herself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say to prove it. I said provide evidence.

Nice hairsplitting. Won't work.

Nobody's refuting that the Big Bang did not occur.

Ypu mean refuting that Big Bang occur, right. Which is what a lot of Bible litteralists, like you, do.

But atheists see what they want to see, and avoid what they want to avoid.

And so do you.

Do you believe there was nothing before? Oh I don't expect you to fall for that. :)

I beliee in God, but nice try. And nice try deforming the view point of the atheists. They don't say that there was nothing, or something, beofre the Big BVang, but rather that there is no answer yet to this question - and that if there was something it was not God.

I'm not entirely clear what you're saying here but perhaps I shouldn't have been so figurative.

Why not, God inspired a wonderful methaphor known as the Genesis.

Let me put it another way. The scientific evidence that atheists rely on is no longer as supportive of the atheistic view.

Science has never be, and is not now, supportive of the deistic or atheistic vision of the Universe. It is... science.

Edited by CANADIEN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science is noone's God, and noone is cliaming it is. As for science turning on atheists... To believe that, one would have to believe that science and faith are opposite to each other... Interstingly enough, a misconception you share with at least a few atheists.

Science can not "turn on" anyone... it is a process, not an entity possessed of its own will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're very entertaining little comic books that are conveniently left lying around on buses and in restaurants or handed out by true-believers.

I used to collect them in my youth. My favourite was the Dungeons and Dragons one.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp

What an awesome story!!! I'm never playing D&D again.... Totally don't want to hang myself!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're very entertaining little comic books that are conveniently left lying around on buses and in restaurants or handed out by true-believers.

I used to collect them in my youth. My favourite was the Dungeons and Dragons one.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp

Hilarious. Some people are so effed in the head it's scary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should cite your sources. Most of us have already read Dawkins et al. The mantra is becoming tiresome. If they're not prepared to provide reasonable evidence that God does not exist, they should at least provide reasonable evidence to support their theories as to how the universe and life did begin.

Where is your theory of how the universe and life began? In case you don't know it, making a claim to us that you know WHO made the Universe and created life does not tell us HOW either the Universe or life is made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good thing that God revelaed itself,because what is written by some of His self-proclaimed defenders would be enough to make an atheist out of me ;-)

It did for me many years ago! It was these self-righteous Christians who don't practice what they preach that started me down the road to questioning the existence or the merit of this god of theirs.

Demanding people to prove the non-existence of something, or someone, or god, is illogical. Non-existence cannot be proven.

It's a waste of time talking to fundamentalists that make decisions on how the universe works based on their own intuitions, but according to the physicists that study quantum mechanics, it's impossible for a state of nothingness to exist in the first place! We live in a Universe where force properties are transmitted through space by "virtual particle pairs" that briefly pop into existence, only to come back together and annihilate each other, disappearing back into the space-time fabric......it doesn't make sense in our everyday world, but these are the laws of physics that have made possible the invention of lasers and integrated circuits that make computers possible....so that creationists can tell us that nothing exists without a cause!

Science is noone's God, and noone is cliaming it is. As for science turning on atheists... To believe that, one would have to believe that science and faith are opposite to each other... Interstingly enough, a misconception you share with at least a few atheists.

Fundamentalists don't believe in faith any more than atheists do. Otherwise they would apply faith in their understanding of God, instead of trying to use empirical evidence to prove that they don't need faith to believe in God.

So, you're right! Many fundamentalists like Albert Moehler express their respect for anti-religious atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens, while the atheist evangelists Dawkins and Harris, who want to eradicate religion, say that they have more respect for fundamentalists than for the liberal or progressive religionists that want to keep their religious faith separate from science. And both sides of fundamentalism share contempt for believers and atheists that aren't interested in joining their winner-take-all religious war!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science has never be, and is not now, supportive of the deistic or atheistic vision of the Universe. It is... science.

Wrong! Open your eyes. Just the topic "REJOICE ON THIS DAY" alone had effectively negated your statement above long, long time ago.

Remove your Dawkins-tinted glasses. Dawkins is nothing more than a self-proclaimed preacher of atheism.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong! Open your eyes. Just the topic "REJOICE ON THIS DAY" alone had effectively negated your statement above long, long time ago.

Correction... The thread you refer to proved that there are people who claim that science proves the existence of God. Nothing in the thread included the actual formula or scientific theory that proves God. Because there is none. Or feel free to show the equation. Until then, I will experience God through the one window to His reality - faith.

Remove your Dawkins-tinted glasses. Dawkins is nothing more than a self-proclaimed preacher of atheism.

If you opened your eyes and remove the glasses long enough, you would notice that I do not share Dawkins opinions on science and on God. You and him are both wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe

The Big Bang was the result of the inevitable laws of physics and did not need God to spark the creation of the Universe, Stephen Hawking has concluded. U.K. Telegraph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No thats just silly, sorry. You reject evolution for no other reason than you find it incompatible with what you want to believe. This same kind of conflict has been playing itself out for hundreds of years.

Lemme tell you a little story.

In 1615 the Church, through the Spanish Inquisition, forced Galileo to denounce his findings and forced him never to teach what he had discovered. But his work went on. Nearly 20 years later in 1633, Galileo again published his findings on the observed orbits of the planets and again the Spanish Inquisition was called into action. But they refused even to look through Galileo’s telescope, as they thought the devil could create illusions with such an instrument.

Youre trying to do the same thing evolution that the church in the 1600's did when Galileo published his theories on planetary orbits. They saw it as a threat, and they not only refused to accept it, but they tried to crush it, and suppress it.

Your rejection of modern day science is just a modern day version of that same story. Youre ALSO scared to look through Galileo's telescope because youre ALSO afraid and threatened by what you might see.

But youre fighting a losing game. Eventually Christians accepted Galileos teachings... it just took a long time. And more and more Christians are accepting evolution today as well.

People are looking through that telescope Betsy! Why doncha have a little peek? :ph34r:

50 years ago scientists were saying that the universe had always been there. And Christians were saying no, it had a beginning.

The two situations (Galileo and what I said) are not comparable at all. It's not a parallel to what I said. Scientists are rejecting evolution. Evolution is a theory that's had its day....it's time it be replaced with something credible. If you don't like God, if you don't like Creatonism, fine....find something that's acceptable to atheists, but it should be credible and logical. Even Darwin had his doubts, and that was 150 years ago and it was HIS theory.

Actually come to think of it, the inquisitors against Galileo are the equivalent of the atheist scientists who won't let evolution go despite the fact that it's been proven wrong.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you opened your eyes and remove the glasses long enough, you would notice that I do not share Dawkins opinions on science and on God. You and him are both wrong.

How do I know what you support? Who are you? I'm not God. I don't know everything.

I'm glad you don't share Dawkin's opinion. You're one step closer to the truth. :)

Or have you stated your position. If so I apologise, I missed it.

But back to your statement:

Science has never be, and is not now, supportive of the deistic or atheistic vision of the Universe. It is... science.

You're saying science is...science. It is impartial. But scientists aren't.

However, no matter how science tries to be impartial....Genesis somehow crops up or is included in discusssions, studies, analysis, research.

Science doesn't always draw correct conclusions.

And numerous scientists had taken sides. Some took the atheistic stance, some became agnostic, deist. And not a few took the extra step of outright conversion to Christian faith (that's what the topic REJOICE....deals with those conversions by prominent atheists to Christianity).

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scientists who won't let evolution go despite the fact that it's been proven wrong

Wow. This statement is not only incorrect, it's bizarre and downright crazy!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...