Creationists V Athiests

[Simpson]

Energy and Mass are interchangable, so mass + energy = constant; not mass on it's own

I don't think you understand my point at all.

So if someone had to have created all the matter that is here and everything that exists has to have been intelligently created who created god? and who created the being that created god? and so on?

Well seeing as I haven't mentioned god in any of my posts I'm not sure wether your trying to take the piss or not. I just think that there must have been something in the begining which caused as a catalyist for the last billions of trillions of years.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

I just think that there must have been something in the begining which caused as a catalyist for the last billions of trillions of years.

I think you'll find, in the 34 page previous topic, we discovered that the meaning of life, and the catalyst for creation, was FeS. I forget why.

[totaltrials]

I'd imagine all the gods have their own godforum.net and discuss the same thing.... Where they come from.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

I'd imagine all the gods have their own godforum.net and discuss the same thing.... Where they come from.

I can imagine some serious slagging matches going on in there too! Like the TGS debate but about who first created light and who thought the Platypus would be a good idea...

[1a2bcio8]

Full circle!

When was there ever nothing?

Exactly. Everyone seems to assume that there was a nothing before a something. They've picked up at a point where science has said something about the distant behaviour (in time) of our physical existence, which relates to the current structure of things and decided that before that point there was no existence. This assumption never seems to be really investigated but it is of, potentially, great importance. The philosophy flowing from science encourages the idea of a God to fill in this problem with the coming into being of existence. We don't have this trouble if we simply assume that existence has always been. How can existence not have existed? As I've stated before, I suspect that this assumption relates to the current conception of time we use - time as movement across a line.

Regarding evolution. I'm fairly sure that it's incorrect to argue that evolution is mutually exclusive to creationism. Evolution, like theories of physics, doesn't indicate a start point for life but rather is a theory, that explains the way in which the structure/behaviour of life changes in accord to the conditions/changes of its environment. That's in its most general sense. For those creationists that don't take all of the Bible literally but take the idea of a diety, literally, than there is still room for creationism alongside evolution. Unless of course we over extend the meaning of evolution, which typically seems to be the case. Evolution doesn't account for how life initially came to be, it only accounts for the way in which it changes and that's only in some respects. It doesn't neccesarily account for why life continually gets more complex.

This does seem like a repeat of before. Everyone defending the same opinions. I wonder how many of us are actually open to the points of view from others. And how many of us are just trying to change the views of others, to our own? All dogmatism is bad, regardless of wether it's atheist or theist/religious dogma. Wouldn't it be better to take this type of discussion as a learning experience rather than a recruiting one? And I don't leave myself out of this accusation.

I would love to hear a completely different spin on this whole argument, aside from my own or the typical polar debate we always seem to experience regarding, religion vs. science - a false opposition for the most part, I believe.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Ben Rowlands

[Tomm]

I generally don't get too involved for the reasons that you say - because I can't take on other people's views. It's not that I won't listen, it's just that I fundamentally can't see any point of reconciliation that makes creationism in the least bit believable. There's no starting point on which to build any common ground. I just don't get it - for me it's black and white and obvious. Any deviation from that is just non-sensical.

I think that it's an interesting life lesson though - I certainly wouldn't want some creationist to think he could change my mind, therefore I wouldn't try to change their stead-fast views. Sometimes we can have different viewpoints and even if the other view makes zero sense, the only way anything good will come is if you accept that's what they believe.

[MadManMike]

I won't believe in anything until someone proves it.

Whether a scientist shows us evidence that the big bang started us, or a God-warrior proves that the big guy exists. And no, I don't mean a book of stories and some rumours of bizarre "miracles".

I need real evidence.

[1a2bcio8]

I generally don't get too involved for the reasons that you say - because I can't take on other people's views. It's not that I won't listen, it's just that I fundamentally can't see any point of reconciliation that makes creationism in the least bit believable. There's no starting point on which to build any common ground. I just don't get it - for me it's black and white and obvious. Any deviation from that is just non-sensical.

I think that it's an interesting life lesson though - I certainly wouldn't want some creationist to think he could change my mind, therefore I wouldn't try to change their stead-fast views. Sometimes we can have different viewpoints and even if the other view makes zero sense, the only way anything good will come is if you accept that's what they believe.

That's fair enough, and I can very much sympathise with your point of view. And I'm actually inclined to think creationism is probably incorrect. However, I find it difficult not to think of how limited humans are in their thinking and how much we often get things wrong; and for that matter, things which seem inescapably true or "common sense". It's always interesting to see the atheist recognise in the theist, their dogma but they often miss it in themselves. Granted, the atheist dogma is kind've like an antidote to rigid theism but it's still dogma and it still seems to give too much credence to our ability to make definite statements. Or put differently, we put too much credence on the evidence we possess to qualify definite statements. It also, unfortunately, ends intelligent thought, even if it might be based on more intelligent thinking in the first instance.

I frequently find myself being dogmatic or ideological, regarding certain circumstances. It's so easy to do and relates to fairly undesirable factors such as the need/want to be correct. Feeling correct all the time makes you feel quite good, especially when we imagine the state of feeling incorrect all the time

[manuel]

Lastly, do you ever think... how is it that the earth is the perfect distance from the sun that it is in its gravitaional pull and not to close it will burn or to far away it will freeze, and that there are stars much more massive than our sun and that by a random fluke of rubbish hitting each other, the earth was formed and life was made?

To me that is way to unlikely and the bible tells that it was done by Gods love and that he did it.

do you know how many stars there are out there ? I dont either - but its a lot (casual understatement). The stats on there being a planet orbiting its sun in such a way that life is possible becomes quite likely when there are billions and billions of them.

And if god made all the stars planets etc - why the f**k did he make all the planets orbiting stars in galaxies far far away ? what the f**k was the point in that ?

You sir need to count yourself lucky to be alive and take a moment in the total perspective vortex...

[JT!]

well supposedly before things collided to make something or how ever evolutionists explain the beginning and I am sorry its richard dawkins...

anyways I think this topic just keeps going in circles should of just read and not commented we all could have all the proof in the world on who is right and we would still want more proof... have fun......

Well this is kind a thread about evolution (although the title is technically wrong). Evolution is the process of how life came to be on this planet, not how the planet came to be or anything before.

I assume that your a Christian who believes the bible is 100% literal truth? If so, you're wrong. It's just that simple.

So if animals can breed and evolve with each other according to Evolotion, why can you not breed a dog with a cat?

Specialization. This is where two species become so genetically different they cannot breed anymore. This is one of the reasons why we have so many clean cut different animals instead of pretty much every combination possible.

One certain creationist (who is now in jail for tax fraud) says this a lot. "Dogs give birth to dogs, when has that ever been any different". Well what he's not getting is that we just call them dogs. I have a papillion here and a big mutt. They wouldn't be able to breed due to specialization, but we still call them both dogs. This is because humans bread dogs, i'm sure if humans were intelligent enough when horses and zebras were evolving they'd be called the same thing.

Lastly, do you ever think... how is it that the earth is the perfect distance from the sun that it is in its gravitaional pull and not to close it will burn or to far away it will freeze, and that there are stars much more massive than our sun and that by a random fluke of rubbish hitting each other, the earth was formed and life was made?

To me that is way to unlikely and the bible tells that it was done by Gods love and that he did it.

You're thinking about this completely wrong, you're asking "How come we ended up on a planet so perfect for us".

Truth is, this planet is perfect for life, therefor life became on it.

You put and apple, a chunk of metal, and a house brick in the same warm room, and only mold grows on the apple. You're not going to say some god chose for the mold to be there because it's the best place. The mold grew there because mold can grow on an apple and not on a brick or a chunk of metal.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

i'm sure if humans were intelligent enough when horses and zebras were evolving they'd be called the same thing.

True for both Horses and Zebra:

Kingdom: Animalia

Phylum: Chordata

Class: Mammalia

Order: Perissodactyla

Family: Equidae

Genus: Equus

[~Samsam~]

You put and apple, a chunk of metal, and a house brick in the same warm room, and only mold grows on the apple. You're not going to say some god chose for the mold to be there because it's the best place. The mold grew there because mold can grow on an apple and not on a brick or a chunk of metal.

Good way of explaining it; will remember that

[1a2bcio8]

You're thinking about this completely wrong, you're asking "How come we ended up on a planet so perfect for us".

Truth is, this planet is perfect for life, therefor life became on it.

You put and apple, a chunk of metal, and a house brick in the same warm room, and only mold grows on the apple. You're not going to say some god chose for the mold to be there because it's the best place. The mold grew there because mold can grow on an apple and not on a brick or a chunk of metal.

I think the question that then follows from this, and that might make us think about a 'design', in some sense, regarding a diety or otherwise, is, why is it that the universe contains in it the potential for life? Why does it go from a state of no life (and disorder), to one of life (and order). Could this really be random? Certainly it is in the sense that we can't comprehend but not neccesarily in the sense that it is a complete fluke - something that is not really meant to happen but happened none the less. But there is a problem with saying intentional or design because it infers that they are actions of a something else (i.e. God), rather than that which is both designer and designed. Personally I don't imagine life to be random (unless we mean our comprehension), but I don't want to say it is a design and mean that there is somebody residing over the design. Can we perhaps say that it is the nature of the universe to create life but that we can't say anything about why it is the nature of the universe? Thus all terms like random, design, intent, etc. are a bit useless? Essentially new words for describing the universe would be appropriate, specifically ones that don't anthropomorphise or express qualities of the human condition onto it.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Ben Rowlands

[Pashley26]

I think you'll find, in the 34 page previous topic, we discovered that the meaning of life, and the catalyst for creation, was FeS. I forget why.

Didn't it have something to do with the Giraffamajig ?

[bikeperson45]

Personnaly i think that there is some sort of God, whether it be a typical one that lives up in heven partying all day or if it's some sort of force, I don't know. No one does. The whole 'there was once nothing, then there was everything' can't be true because of the whole enregy can't be made thing, it's transfered.

i heard down at CERN their getting closer to what happened at the time of the big bang, there a few seconds off or something. We'll have to wait and see.

But one of the reasons i believe in 'God' is because I can't imagine there being a few germs that were able to mutate and live to form everything we have now. The human body is stupidly clever, and I can sort of imagine it being 'designed'.

[JT!]

I think the question that then follows from this, and that might make us think about a 'design', in some sense, regarding a diety or otherwise, is, why is it that the universe contains in it the potential for life? Why does it go from a state of no life (and disorder), to one of life (and order). Could this really be random? Certainly it is in the sense that we can't comprehend but not neccesarily in the sense that it is a complete fluke - something that is not really meant to happen but happened none the less. But there is a problem with saying intentional or design because it infers that they are actions of a something else (i.e. God), rather than that which is both designer and designed. Personally I don't imagine life to be random (unless we mean our comprehension), but I don't want to say it is a design and mean that there is somebody residing over the design. Can we perhaps say that it is the nature of the universe to create life but that we can't say anything about why it is the nature of the universe? Thus all terms like random, design, intent, etc. are a bit useless? Essentially new words for describing the universe would be appropriate, specifically ones that don't anthropomorphise or express qualities of the human condition onto it.

You're heading into the area of philosophy and more much bigger questions than the origin of life. I don't stress over that stuff too much because i don't think we'll ever get any where near an answer in our life times so i'm not too fussed, i'm fine with not knowing. And even if we could know I don't think we could comprehend it with our basic human minds.

It's possible that we could have been 'designed' to some extent, but you need to leave all the bible crap behind because that was a human creation on the creation of human and god made the bible, and the bible is proof there is a god. It's just one massive controdiciton.

That's why I don't really have a problem with people who believe in some kind of god as we don't know where we came from initially. But we do know how we came from, evolution etc. It's a fact.

[Tomm]

That's fair enough, and I can very much sympathise with your point of view. And I'm actually inclined to think creationism is probably incorrect. However, I find it difficult not to think of how limited humans are in their thinking and how much we often get things wrong; and for that matter, things which seem inescapably true or "common sense". It's always interesting to see the atheist recognise in the theist, their dogma but they often miss it in themselves. Granted, the atheist dogma is kind've like an antidote to rigid theism but it's still dogma and it still seems to give too much credence to our ability to make definite statements. Or put differently, we put too much credence on the evidence we possess to qualify definite statements. It also, unfortunately, ends intelligent thought, even if it might be based on more intelligent thinking in the first instance.

I do accept that we don't have all the answers, but your post could just as easily apply to creationists. Where the only answer is "God did it", where is the scope for a learning more? All we can do is base our opinions on observations around us. It has 4 wheels, it looks like a car. I am 99.9999% sure it is a car. Arguing over that 0.0001 % is pedantic?

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

I think it's a fictional vehicle called the gyronocaropteriplane. I think I may write a book about it and see if I can get some people to believe me and maybe start some fights with anyone who tries to call it a car. Maybe then imprison and torture anyone who says it's a car until they also believe it's a gyronocaropteriplane. That could work... and I might even be able to make some money along the way too... don't think that business plan has ever been carried out in history. Now to put together a pitch for Dragons' Den...

[Ollie Histon]

Am i right in saying that according to the bible, many people believed in God. Then Jesus came and told everybody more about this God. How did they know about him in the first place? I think i'm saying the same thing as JT about God being a human creation before Jesus even came about.

[Pashley26]

I think i'm saying the same thing as JT about God being a human creation before Jesus even came about.

I'm fairly sure the concept of there being a "God" in the sense we know it all came about with the birth of the little baby Jesus...

[1a2bcio8]

You're heading into the area of philosophy and more much bigger questions than the origin of life. I don't stress over that stuff too much because i don't think we'll ever get any where near an answer in our life times so i'm not too fussed, i'm fine with not knowing. And even if we could know I don't think we could comprehend it with our basic human minds.

It's possible that we could have been 'designed' to some extent, but you need to leave all the bible crap behind because that was a human creation on the creation of human and god made the bible, and the bible is proof there is a god. It's just one massive controdiciton.

That's why I don't really have a problem with people who believe in some kind of god as we don't know where we came from initially. But we do know how we came from, evolution etc. It's a fact.

Yeah I accept I don't really know but it's enjoyable speculating and evaulating the likelihood of different explanations. It makes life quite interesting to carry around various myths/stories/descriptions about the nature of reality.

I think I might disagree, if in fact you mean this; that evolution explains how we came to be regarding a starting point. To a certain extent, evolution describes how/why lifeforms have changed over time but it essentially only starts that description after life has come to be. Life is a prerequisite for evolution but life came from that which was not life. Evolution requires the presence of life forms in an environment, interacting that environment, leading to changes of the life form, on the level of the species over time. To know how life began, we must know what processes changed inanimate material into animate material (life). Clearly we come from the 'ground', so to speak, but how? I find that idea very interesting albeit a bit overwhelming

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

I'm fairly sure the concept of there being a "God" in the sense we know it all came about with the birth of the little baby Jesus...

Christian's only gave it the identity and wrote a book about it. Gods were a way of explaining away events in the world that weren't understood at the time. The Greeks obviously spring to mind with Thor being the God of thunder getting angry or whatever. Gods have always been a human creation to try and explain away what we don't understand. In the case of the major organised religions they've just been promoted by greed and exploitation of the weak which for some crazy reason has allowed them to endure. Unfortunately.

[Mat Tea Why]

This man's videos list everything I would want to say on this matter and in a much better way than I could.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Mat Tea Why

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Clearly we come from the 'ground', so to speak, but how? I find that idea very interesting albeit a bit overwhelming

It's all down to amino acids isn't it? They in themselves are inanimate but occur naturally and join to form proteins. (And, with the help of Wikipedia) that leads us to the almighty FeS which has been proposed as the origin of the very first organic material:

Wächtershäuser proposes that the earliest form of life, termed "pioneer organism", originated in a volcanic hydrothermal flow at high pressure and high (≥100°C) temperature. It had a composite structure of a mineral base with catalytic transition metal centers (predominantly iron and nickel, but also perhaps cobalt, manganese, tungsten and zinc). The catalytic centers catalyzed autotrophic carbon fixation pathways generating small molecule (non-polymer) organic compounds from inorganic gases (e.g. carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrogen cyanide and hydrogen sulfide). These organic compounds were retained on or in the mineral base as organic ligands of the transition metal centers with a flow retention time in correspondence with their mineral bonding strength thereby defining an autocatalytic "surface metabolism".The catalytic transition metal centers became autocatalytic by being accelerated by their organic products turned ligands. The carbon fixation metabolism became autocatalytic by forming a metabolic cycle in the form of a primitive sulfur-dependent version of the reductive citric acid cycle. Accelerated catalysts expanded the metabolism and new metabolic products further accelerated the catalysts. The idea is that once such a primitive autocatalytic metabolism was established, its intrinsically synthetic chemistry began to produce ever more complex organic compounds, ever more complex pathways and ever more complex catalytic centers.

The fundamental idea of the origin of life according to the iron-sulfur world theory can be simplified in the following brief characterization: Pressurize and heat a water flow with dissolved volcanic gases (e.g. carbon monoxide, ammonia and hydrogen sulfide) to ≥100°C. Pass the flow over catalytic transition metal solids (e.g. iron sulfide and nickel sulfide). Wait and locate the formation of catalytic metallo-peptides. Some crucial aspects of this theory have been confirmed experimentally.

That or God of course which leads me back to God being FeS.

[Pashley26]

I just find it all (as I'm assuming you do ?) a bit far fetched ?

I'm a man of physical evidence, and thus far the only factual evidence anybody can give in this argument is that "some geezer called Jesus existed" or "look, heres fossils we can date to millions of years ago that show fish growing legs and then those fish with legs being able to walk" or whatever.

So until I have one of these live changing experiences or god finds me (because I ain't lookin!);

Pics or it didn't happen.