Idiotic Creationist post...

Great Debates
221

The best way to approach this topic is through logic, correct?

OK, then let’s see… if you went far back enough (infinity, that is) there would be nothing, absolutely nothing… right? And if there was… its appearnce would be illogical for certain.

Woops! Already we run into a problem… In absolute void, there is no energy, no potential energy, no “laws of gravity”, no matter, and no God… right? Remember, we’re talking about INFINITY ago.

So… logic fails. If there was no energy or matter, wouldn’t the Big Bang theory be missing the vital part? I’m not TOO familiar with the theory, but I know that I am using logic to discuss this.

Also, wouldn’t God’s creation be impossible? After all, He must have an origin, right? Otherwise, logic fails again!
So here we have it… logic and the beginning of the Universe don’t mix. And because neither side can ever fully prove the beginning of the Universe with logic, the argument goes on forever… Too bad!

And who’s to say that if there really was a God, that he’d tell us the whole truth about the creation of the Universe?? It’s not like we’d even be able to comprehend it. I know that if I could program actual intelligence on my computer, I wouldn’t try to tell it what code I used for it. Eventually the program would try to figure itself out, but run into a problem… the very beginning.

So what’s the solution? It is simply to pick a side and have faith. Atheists can have faith that there is no God, and everything came from nothing… and those who believe there is a God can have faith that there is a story too big and too wonderful for us to understand in this lifetime… and hope to someday meet God so we can ask him ourselves.

May Logic Prevail.

222

—Interestingly enough, successfully producing life from nonlife in a laboratory quite enhances the philosophical position of IDers.—

How so? Is the argument that because some designers can design, all things must be designed? Wouldn’t we except that regardless of whether something is designed or not, it could be simple enough to take it apart and learn how to build similar things?

This seems as lousy an objection as Johnson’s complaint that Dawkin’s computer simulations of very rudimentary natural selection were run on a designed computer.

—Atheists can have faith that there is no God, and everything came from nothing… and those who believe there is a God can have faith that there is a story too big and too wonderful for us to understand in this lifetime… and hope to someday meet God so we can ask him ourselves.—

I’m an atheist, and I don’t have faith that there is no god. I’m not sure what the big difference is between not believing in something, and believing in something that can’t be understood.

223

Fine, then atheists can not have faith in anything. I think you missed my point entirely.

My point was that we will never know the truth (especially in our lifetimes) so we should have faith in something in the meantime. If you don’t want faith, then I can’t complain.

So, basically, you don’t understand faith? Do you believe that the food you eat won’t kill you? Do you believe that when you turn on your computer, you won’t be electricuted to death? Do you believe anything? Because belief is kinda like faith, it’s a risk you take, and it requires hope.

224

Intelligent Design is one of those theories that can sit quite comfortably simply because it can niether be proved or disproved in any meaningful scientific fashion, yet because of it’s own compelling circular logic it will continue to fascinate those who want more than the old “the Bible said so” argument.

Ultimately, everything must be taken on faith, not just religion. The scientific laws we use to interpret our reality and the nature of it’s past must be taken on faith as well. The advantage of science however is that contradiction invites greater understanding, not backpedaling or the defense of an untenable dogma. You can take that leap of faith if you like, but there is no telling where you might land (and how much money your religion will want from you).

225

Well put, Azael.

I think anyone who is interested in the differences/similarities between Science and God should consider reading “God, the Atom, and the Universe.”

It was written in the 60’s if I’m right… but it’s sure a good wholesome read.

226

Another important distinction I believe many people miss is that science is never intended as an “alternative” to religion. It’s almost as if people assume that if someone questions the basis of their religion on scientific grounds then that person must be preaching a religion of his own.

Science tells us how, it cannot tell us why.

227

Well of course it does, because everything supports ID. It is a completely non-falsifiable position, which is exactly why it is worthless as a scientific theory. Even when faced with blatantly obvious examples of stupid design, proponents of ID prattle on with some ad hoc explanation, totally devoid of any substance. Usually something directly related to their favorite mythology, like “original sin” or “the fall”.

228

I think the problem arises when people try to take the bible literally. It is impossible, as with all the contradictions. Some of you may not be aware of this, but there are two creation stories. I went through 12 years of catholic schooling, and in all my years, I was taught not to take the bible literally, but as a guidebook. I think it works much better this way.

It’s disheartening to think that people actually believe stuff like this :
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm?

While religion has helped science in some cases, over all, it stands in the way of progress a lot more than is comfortable.

229

Actually, I do see where you are coming from, scott. However, to be honest, I don’t feel that any light whatsoever will be shed on life’s ultimate origins, should this undertaking succeed. About all that could be stated for certain is that synthetically-created life requires a designer/creator. Even if humans gain the ability to create life, it still says nothing about how life first “became”.

I have no doubt that there will be attempts, by all “sides” involved (but not necessarily by all individuals) to incorporate these scientists’ hypothetical success into their arguments as “proof” of their position. IDers will likely latch on to the fact that all that was done (speaking as from the future, assuming success, of course) was a genome-replacement in an already-existing cell. We still haven’t created a true cell, because it’s just too complex, etc. And materialists may use the argument I put forth before: this shows that the alleged designer need not be divine, thus enhancing the position of the “nature as designer” camp.

In other words, I don’t think much will really change in terms of the arguments used.

230

D.F. I would agree with that. That just isn’t how I was reading your other post.

I agree completely that it would not really be good evidence for ID. I just think it will be used and was presenting what I expect their arguement would be.

231

Why does everybody ignore my post?

It goes to the root of the problem and exposes it.
If you’re going to have a dialect, start from the beginning.

Neither side can win the argument by talking about what they see here and now, unless it talks about the beginning.

232

TerryW- I think we ignore your post because it lacks any evidence and it makes no sense.

For example, you say the following:

“OK, then let’s see… if you went far back enough (infinity, that is) there would be nothing, absolutely nothing… right? And if there was… its appearnce would be illogical for certain.”

Which makes no sense and isn’t even possible. How can you go back “far enough”, yet at the same time go back an infinite amount of time?

Illogical? Yes, because what you posit makes no sense…

233

In the beginning there was nothing…

Interesting concept, so interesting in fact that it is extremely difficult to imagine exactly what nothing is, it’s rather like trying to imagine what’s “outside” of the universe. Or how about, what happened “before” time?

Lets just say for an instant that all of creation needs a creator, well then who created the creator? Any answer to this paradox is just about as likely as a universe that spontaenously erupted from non-being. The problem we humans have is the limitations of our perspective. We make up for it with our imagination.

Intelligent Design = Creative Interpretation

234

I have always wondered how it was known that one species evolved into another.

It is true we find different “styles” of man and animals, but how do we prove one evolved into the other. In Africa, men six feet plus live along side men 3 feet plus. They both exist as different forms of mankind. Just because one form of man lived a few thousands years before another, what, but assumption says one evolved into the other. The same with animals. We still have fish that crawl out of the water and walk across land living today.

Evolution is all assumption the way I see it. No proof, since we were not there to observe it.

When a creationist says we have never known any species to be anything other than than species, they are correct. Evolution is based on assumption, not facts.

Now creation, on the other hand is based on the Bible, which was written by men, not there at the beginning. It is also assumption, myth, historical fiction. The Eskimos believe their ancestors created the world, and came out of the ground.

I believe the jury is still out, no one knows how this universe came into being, but we sure do like to argue about it.

235

IHAVEALLTHEANSWERS-

Please tell me why evolution is the incorrect way of viewing things. I have looked at each of your points and they still dont refute the large amount evidence provided by the other posters. I honestly dont know what I should believe (evolution or creation). Id like to hear your position, please make it clear to me (us) why theories of evolution and the current length of the Earth are incorrect. If you could summarize that in one post, Id be happy. Also, if you could take time to refute each of the objections to your reasoning that would be awesome too. Otherwise its just making people angry when you ignore many of their important points.

Thanks

236

I suppose you are unfamiliar with the concept of “logical deduction”, then? And Darwin’s logical basis for natural selection? As well as the facts from which the logical inference of natural selection was made?

Just asking, because you would have to be unfamiliar with all of those aspects in order to claim “evolution is all assumption”.

That and we have seen speciation occur a number of times.

237

Pythagras: given that this thread was resurrected from the dead, and it’s been well over a year since IGOTTHEANSWERS’ last post, I doubt you’ll receive a reply from him.

238

Oh… LOL.

239

lekatt said:

So the only way to get evidence is through direct human observation?

Wow. That will come as stunning knowledge to scientists everywhere, not to mention lawyers, judges, police, etc.

Go read a science book and then come back when you’ve learned something.

240

No, they’re totally wrong because they don’t bother to learn the facts. There are plenty of observed instances of speciation- just go to www.talkorigins.org and read the appropriate FAQ.

If evolution is all assumption without proof, how do you explain retrogenes?