NationStates Jolt Archive

One respect in which Evolutionary theory differs from Creation theory is that Evolution is a newer idea.

Now, we all know that newer isn't always better, however, overall change is beneficial.

Changes in medical science are generally accepted as beneficial - people live longer, and their diseases are easier to cure.

Changes in politics are generally accepted as beneficial - in most countries, regularly elected officials make decisions, rather than a monarch or dictator for life.

Changes in telecommunications are generally accepted as beneficial - millions of people have access to almost-instant communication with people from all over the earth, using telephones, e-mail and more.

Changes in transport are generally accepted as beneficial - we can travel farther, faster and in more environmentally friendly ways.

Changes in social attitudes are generally accepted as beneficial - there is far less discrimination on basis of race or gender as there has been.

Changes in computer software are generally accepted as beneficial - there are less bugs, less security holes, and more helpful features.

Changes in the theories of human origin are, however, an exception in some people's opinion. This is unusual, since, with over 100 years having passed since the first edition of "Origin of Species"* by Charles Darwin and modern scientific discoveries supporting evolutionary theory, it is logical to assume that it is correct, at least in basic concepts.

However, a surprisingly large proportion of people believe that evolutionary theory is not only in error, but completely wrong. They disregard up-to-date theories, and the research on which they are based.

In the field of theories human origins, many people take the attitude that change is detrimental, even when they would agree that all the other examples of changes are beneficial overall.

That one questions their logic is unsurprising.



*Full name "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection; or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

Well, its all a matter of the bible. I think the whole thing should be updated, I mean it was good for its time, but a lot of the stuff in it should be reevaluated. Remember that the prophets of then may be the schitzes (yes, I misspelled that, and that too) of today. But I digress. Science is good, but some people need faith as a way to make their lives not just a random assortment of molecules. Taking the bible literally is usually a bad idea. There are still people who believe dinosaur fossils are a joke from God, since the good book says that the Earth hasn't been around that long. And did you know it predicts the second coming of Christ in 1947? And the coming of the Antichrist at 2709? A goodly wait, aye?

Wow, people are going to debate this topic forever..
I can see the flames already..
Anyway, my theory, as a Christian, is this:
I belive in the Biblical story of creation.
I believe in The Garden of Eden.
I believe in Evolution.
I believe in the "Big Bang" Theory.

In the beginning, God created everything. He did a pretty damn good job of it, too. He made the sun, animals, plants, oceans, everything. All in 'one week'. Now, I belive that God has a different schedule than mortals. So, 'one week' to God, could be billions of years to us. The Bible was written by men, not God, and they probably just put 'on the first day', etc, because, I dunno, God didn't feel like explaining quantum physics and alternate dimensions to a bunch of old Jewish guys.. or something like that. That was the Big Bang.
Anyway, so God did all that, made a couple people, and stuck them in a garden, Eden.
Now, if you recall, Adam and Eve were naughty and did what God said not to do, and they got kicked out.
They had a bunch of kids, namely Cain and Abel.
Cain slew Abel, that's a given.
But.. here's where skeptics get thrown off.. Cain left, and went away to a city and got married to someone that was not his sister.
"Wait, weren't Adam and Eve the only people?"
Up pops the theory of Evolution.
In short, outside the garden of Eden, billions of years passed. Lots of stuff happened. Dinosaurs died, and evolution began.
I don't know if humans came from monkeys, or what, but there's my take on the general idea..

Athiests will hate me for saying God created the world, other Christians will hate me for believing in evolution.
But hey, I just found a happy medium and stuck with it.

Some interesting replies.

Those who reply should remember, the point of this topic is how evolution is an exception to people's attitudes about changes, not just the standard creationism-vs-evolution squabble.

Wow, people are going to debate this topic forever..
I can see the flames already..
Anyway, my theory, as a Christian, is this:
I belive in the Biblical story of creation.
I believe in The Garden of Eden.
I believe in Evolution.
I believe in the "Big Bang" Theory.

In the beginning, God created everything. He did a pretty damn good job of it, too. He made the sun, animals, plants, oceans, everything. All in 'one week'. Now, I belive that God has a different schedule than mortals. So, 'one week' to God, could be billions of years to us. The Bible was written by men, not God, and they probably just put 'on the first day', etc, because, I dunno, God didn't feel like explaining quantum physics and alternate dimensions to a bunch of old Jewish guys.. or something like that. That was the Big Bang.
Anyway, so God did all that, made a couple people, and stuck them in a garden, Eden.
Now, if you recall, Adam and Eve were naughty and did what God said not to do, and they got kicked out.
They had a bunch of kids, namely Cain and Abel.
Cain slew Abel, that's a given.
But.. here's where skeptics get thrown off.. Cain left, and went away to a city and got married to someone that was not his sister.
"Wait, weren't Adam and Eve the only people?"
Up pops the theory of Evolution.
In short, outside the garden of Eden, billions of years passed. Lots of stuff happened. Dinosaurs died, and evolution began.
I don't know if humans came from monkeys, or what, but there's my take on the general idea..

Athiests will hate me for saying God created the world, other Christians will hate me for believing in evolution.
But hey, I just found a happy medium and stuck with it.
Yeah, I can accept that. Not agree with it, of course, but at least it seems well thought out and more logical than saying the world was made in a week 6,000 years ago.

Well, most bible stories are akin to primitive myths about how the world began. Religion was man's earliest response to ignorance and curiosity. Science has enabled us to gain knowledge on certain topics, like medicine (we've gone from "God is displeased and struck him down" to "he had a stroke) and meteorology (from "God is displeased and won't make it rain" to "we have a drought). Cosmology is one of the last fronts. We just need more study.

Wow. Well, my two cents are hardly going to be as stunning as the previous responses, but I came from a realtively religious community (which I happened to have different views than they did), and the problem I see with evolution being taught in America atleast, is that the population is ultimately tied down to the dogma. Yes there are some theistic evolutionists, but for the most part, when you mention the name Darwin, there's a hail storm. That is, unless, you add the word Social in front of it and the ism suffix. :eek:

Well, according to the bible, changing the bible will lead to your eventual shitting of bloody locusts and whatnot. Also, god doesn't tolerate fence-sitters.

One respect in which Evolutionary theory differs from Creation theory is that Evolution is a newer idea.

Now, we all know that newer isn't always better, however, overall change is beneficial.

Changes in medical science are generally accepted as beneficial - people live longer, and their diseases are easier to cure.

Changes in politics are generally accepted as beneficial - in most countries, regularly elected officials make decisions, rather than a monarch or dictator for life.

Changes in telecommunications are generally accepted as beneficial - millions of people have access to almost-instant communication with people from all over the earth, using telephones, e-mail and more.

Changes in transport are generally accepted as beneficial - we can travel farther, faster and in more environmentally friendly ways.

Changes in social attitudes are generally accepted as beneficial - there is far less discrimination on basis of race or gender as there has been.

Changes in computer software are generally accepted as beneficial - there are less bugs, less security holes, and more helpful features.

Changes in the theories of human origin are, however, an exception in some people's opinion. This is unusual, since, with over 100 years having passed since the first edition of "Origin of Species"* by Charles Darwin and modern scientific discoveries supporting evolutionary theory, it is logical to assume that it is correct, at least in basic concepts.

However, a surprisingly large proportion of people believe that evolutionary theory is not only in error, but completely wrong. They disregard up-to-date theories, and the research on which they are based.

In the field of theories human origins, many people take the attitude that change is detrimental, even when they would agree that all the other examples of changes are beneficial overall.

That one questions their logic is unsurprising.



*Full name "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection; or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

Those people also live inside of a box. Even the Vatican under Pope John Paul II has come out and said evolution is right (with the exception that god guided it blah blah blah).

Evolution has never set out to prove or disprove God.

It's a vast improvement then listen to the uknown be explained off by "Gods Will"

Those people also live inside of a box. Even the Vatican under Pope John Paul II has come out and said evolution is right (with the exception that god guided it blah blah blah).
Didn't they also endorse the Big Bang theory?

I don't believe evolution is an exemption, insofar that other progressions have also been looked down upon at the time period they were occurring. Social change, in particular, is almost always frowned upon by the majority when it's happening. The abolition of slavery was probably not supported by most Americans when it happened, there was great acrimony during the Civil Rights Movement, and there is a lot of acrimony now over gay rights.

Off-topic thought: How long it took God to make the world depends on God's velocity at the time, and the strength of the gravitational field he was subject two (or curvature of spacetime to be more accurate).

Not all new ideas are universally considered to be "improvements" or beneficial, and many advances in scientific thinking were only accepted long after they were first espoused. Plate techtonics for example has only become widely accepted in the last few decades.

Evolution differs from a lot of other ideas that the casual observer willfully dismisses because some people insist that it challneges the very core of their belief system.

The problem of course is that for most of the emergence of contrary evidence tends to lead us to a rethink of our beliefs. Creationists appear to be unwilling to do so.

But even the new ideas you list as being generally considered to be benficial are rarely universally accepted as so. E.g. most environmentalists I've heard tend to complain about the negative impact aircraft have on the environment, and that's before you get them onto the subject of cars. Some people continue to eschew modern life and live in communities free of modern technology becasue they don't think it's a good thing. And how many people wished we'd never learned to split the atom? I'd put creationsists in the same camp and say they were a vocal, in some quarters, group but essentially a minority group.

So I wouldn't say that evolution is significantly less accepted than many other advances in thinking or technology.

Newness has nothing to do with it. If someone proposed an alternative to the atomic theory, it is unlikely that it would be taken seriously without a great deal of evidence. While is unlikely scientists will revert to the ancient "four elements" model, they don't just accept theories based on novelty.

Didn't they also endorse the Big Bang theory?

That I am not sure about, but it is a definite possibility.

Newness has nothing to do with it. If someone proposed an alternative to the atomic theory, it is unlikely that it would be taken seriously without a great deal of evidence. While is unlikely scientists will revert to the ancient "four elements" model, they don't just accept theories based on novelty.

I said vary clearly in my original post "newer isn't always better", but OVERALL change is beneficial. i.e. over a long period of time, so only things that last a significant amount of time (and bring about change).

Part of it has to do with the elegance of the system. Say what you will about the creationist hypothesis, while it may not amount to a hill of beans in explanatory and predictive power, it does offer people the assurance that God has a purpose, and from that, they do too. In that way, creationism is a very effecient and elegant system of thought.

Evolution, on the other hand, offers a great deal of explanatory and predictive power. Most every biological advance in the last 100 years has been based on this principle. That being said, the one thing evolution cannot give is a sense of purpose. We might just as easily have wound up being gelatinous gobs of primeval goo, had that been what was best suited to the conditions of Earth in some possible world. Thus, while evolution is elegant in the sense that it effeciently explains a vast amount of biological field data, it's lack of telos also scares the hell out of lots of people.

One respect in which Evolutionary theory differs from Creation theory is that Evolution is a newer idea.

Now, we all know that newer isn't always better, however, overall change is beneficial.

Changes in medical science are generally accepted as beneficial - people live longer, and their diseases are easier to cure.

Changes in politics are generally accepted as beneficial - in most countries, regularly elected officials make decisions, rather than a monarch or dictator for life.

Changes in computer software are generally accepted as beneficial - there are less bugs, less security holes, and more helpful features.

Changes in the theories of human origin are, however, an exception in some people's opinion. This is unusual, since, with over 100 years having passed since the first edition of "Origin of Species"* by Charles Darwin and modern scientific discoveries supporting evolutionary theory, it is logical to assume that it is correct, at least in basic concepts.

However, a surprisingly large proportion of people believe that evolutionary theory is not only in error, but completely wrong. They disregard up-to-date theories, and the research on which they are based.

In the field of theories human origins, many people take the attitude that change is detrimental, even when they would agree that all the other examples of changes are beneficial overall.

That one questions their logic is unsurprising.


The problem with evolution in the eyes of religious people is that "survival of the fittest" is not a theme in tune with the ten commandments.
Personally, I find that many people don't know about the other motto of evolution is "mutual aid" . If you consider both of these basic ideas together, there is no real threat to the morality of religion, just to the concept of creation.
Personally, I have found very intelligent people blinded by the myth of creation and that is so sad to see them hit the invisible wall in their understanding of life.

Part of it has to do with the elegance of the system. Say what you will about the creationist hypothesis, while it may not amount to a hill of beans in explanatory and predictive power, it does offer people the assurance that God has a purpose, and from that, they do too. In that way, creationism is a very effecient and elegant system of thought.

Evolution, on the other hand, offers a great deal of explanatory and predictive power. Most every biological advance in the last 100 years has been based on this principle. That being said, the one thing evolution cannot give is a sense of purpose. We might just as easily have wound up being gelatinous gobs of primeval goo, had that been what was best suited to the conditions of Earth in some possible world. Thus, while evolution is elegant in the sense that it effeciently explains a vast amount of biological field data, it's lack of telos also scares the hell out of lots of people.

However, the idea that we have advanced from early life, gives inspiration, because it makes one think of further advancement we can make. We are unique in that we are the only entities known to exhibit our level of our intelligence, which is quite impressive, planned or not.

True, but saying that you're a remarkably effective cosmic mistake or accident doesn't give quite the warm, fuzzy feeling that being told a loving God made you does.

True, but saying that you're a remarkably effective cosmic mistake or accident doesn't give quite the warm, fuzzy feeling that being told a loving God made you does.

Knowing that humanity is responsible for its own fate, and cannot rely on a higher power to make things right is probably quite a good thing overall.

-edit- I didn't mean to start my post with "True, but" as well as you.

Evolution has never set out to prove or disprove God.

Quite. I'm an atheist and also believe evolution to be a reasonably likely theory. What I don't see is evolution as a nail in the coffin of religion. It's got enough holes without needing any more from Darwin. If there were a god, it'd be more than capable of doing things any way it damn well pleased, be that by guiding development in an evolution-like way, or clicking its fingers and saying "Cor, look, giraffes". Why a hypothetical creator would construct a self consistent universe and then dictate a book about it which farts in the face its own work, I can't imagine.

Religion and evolution are seperate issues, only conflated by those who wish to muddy the waters to because confused people are easier to control.

I think the major difference between theories of human origin and those examples of beneficial changes listed in the original post is this: Those subjects that are changing and are considered mostly beneficial usually have a direct reward for accepting them, such as faster more efficient cars, high speed internet, etc. whereas changing one's belief in human origins has no direct beneficial aspect unless you're a biologist. Furthermore, all these generally beneficial things haven't acquired the amount of societal inertia that creationism has. You don't have to be a theologician or incredibly devout practitioner of Christianity in order to understand creationism. Also, those most vocal in their abhorrence to evolution theory are those most likely entrenched in places that historically have had a poor system of public schooling and education, and are less likely to understand the benefits of changing one's beliefs when confronting their faith with logic. For many people, accepting the theory of evolution means changing their entire perspective of life and the world, which they are understandably reluctant to do. I think however, with the passage of time, those who refuse to accept the validity of Darwin's theories will become more and more deranged from the rest of contemporary society and will slowly peter out, existing in only small, isolated factions. Change has always been difficult for human beings to accept, but we see evolution in memes (cultural epochs) much like we do in biology. When the eldest, most reluctant individuals are replaced by their younger, more 'fit' counterparts, the paradigm will shift and the societal inertia will shift with it. The only constant is change.

Evolution is a change through out a period of time. That's being very general. On the other hand, there are two types of evolution: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution has been proven. You do it all the time; you turn a page in a book, you click on a link on the internet. When you do things like that, you're making minor changes to what's already there. Macroevolution however has not been proven. It is defined as changing something by adding to it and changing that species into another over time. Microevolution is fact while macroeveolution is only theory. Yet the evolution that is taught in schools promotes macroevolution as fact and doesn't give the other side of it. Macroevolution is what you people have been talking about. I don't understand how you can believe in something that has not been proven.

Evolution is a change through out a period of time. That's being very general. On the other hand, there are two types of evolution: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution has been proven. You do it all the time; you turn a page in a book, you click on a link on the internet. When you do things like that, you're making minor changes to what's already there. Macroevolution however has not been proven. It is defined as changing something by adding to it and changing that species into another over time. Microevolution is fact while macroeveolution is only theory. Yet the evolution that is taught in schools promotes macroevolution as fact and doesn't give the other side of it. Macroevolution is what you people have been talking about. I don't understand how you can believe in something that has not been proven.

Umm... what about Creationism... that has been proven?

Lots more evidence towards Evolution

Wow, people are going to debate this topic forever.

not forever. just until the one side admits it got its ass handed to it over 100 years ago. we'll stop kicking it when it stays down; when it stops trying to force its idiocy on the rest of us.

Evolution is a change through out a period of time. That's being very general. On the other hand, there are two types of evolution: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution has been proven. You do it all the time; you turn a page in a book, you click on a link on the internet. When you do things like that, you're making minor changes to what's already there. Macroevolution however has not been proven. It is defined as changing something by adding to it and changing that species into another over time. Microevolution is fact while macroeveolution is only theory. Yet the evolution that is taught in schools promotes macroevolution as fact and doesn't give the other side of it. Macroevolution is what you people have been talking about. I don't understand how you can believe in something that has not been proven.

"Only a theory" means nothing. All science is theory. Just some theories match observed evidence better, so those are the ones you believe (until refinements, or better theories come along)

Umm... what about Creationism... that has been proven?

Lots more evidence towards Evolution

What evidence does Evolution have? Plus, how can a big bang creat such complex beings as ourselves if not for something to go by? God created man in his own image!

I don't understand how you can believe in something that has not been proven.

One has to 1st make the choice to use pragmatism as the standard by which to judge. We must agree to base our decisions on what works, rather than intuition or revelation. Either lay hands on a flat tire and pray for the sick, rather than taking them to a mechanic or a doctor, or if you are not willing to be consistent then just shut up and go away. Religious view amounts to: When we're afraid, we seek God. When God doesn't answer our prayers, blame it on the devil. Its a kind of pathetic, childish response to some failure.
Science shares with religion the claim that it answers deep questions about origins, the nature of life, and the cosmos. But there the resemblance ends. Scientific beliefs are supported by evidence, and they get results or are discarded. Myths and faiths are not and do not.
In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people get hurt, other people get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, or justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design- no purpose, no good or evil, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
-Richie Dawkins

What evidence does Evolution have? Plus, how can a big bang creat such complex beings as ourselves if not for something to go by? God created man in his own image!

That doesn't make much sense, as God is, by definition, perfect, and anyone can see that humans are imperfect.

Our complexity is the result of evolution - we evolved from less complex life, over long periods of time.

I don't understand how you can believe in something that has not been proven.

Looks like you don't believe in God then.

P.S.

Science doesn't deal in proof.

P.P.S.

A scientific theory is a hypothesis supported by so much evidence that you'd have to be a complete idiot to dispute it.

P.P.P.S.

Marcoevolution in the scientific sense is speciation.

P.P.P.P.S.

Speciation has been observed.

P.P.P.P.P.S.

Multiple times.

P.P.P.P.P.P.S.

Macroevolution is therefore a fact.

P.P.P.P.P.P.P.S.

Evolution is a fact.

P.P.P.P.P.P.P.P.S.

The theory of Evolution merely explains how evolution happened.

What evidence does Evolution have? Plus, how can a big bang creat such complex beings as ourselves if not for something to go by? God created man in his own image!

Ok, first off extinct animals, and other various bones and fossils of old ancestors. Animal evolution has been observed, like the black/white moth in England. Before, black moths were eaten by predators because they had bad camoflauge, but later, because of the pollution of the industrial revolution, black moths became more of a majority since they could effectively hide themselves. This is a simple example, set in a short period of time, imagine millions of years of these small and subtle changes.

Second, all the evidence of creationism comes from 1 source, a 3000 year old book.

I wasn't trying to inflame anyone with that last post, I just happened to be reading River Out of Eden by Richie Dawkins and it seemed particulary appropriate. If you were offended by that last post, I apologize, and also you probably should not read the quotes below, as they might prove to be offensive as well. I find them quite interesting, however....



- More Dawkins quotes-
Religion is a terrfic meme. Smallpox is a terrific virus. It does its job magnificently well. That doesn't mean its a good thing. It doesn't mean that I don't want to see it stamped out.

Catholicism is like a virus - parasitic self-replicating codes which exploit the existence of machinery that was set up to copy and obey that kind of code.

Off-topic thought: How long it took God to make the world depends on God's velocity at the time, and the strength of the gravitational field he was subject two (or curvature of spacetime to be more accurate).
'God' could not have been affected by velocity or gravitational fields as such do not exist outside of the universe, unless you're suggesting that 'god' was somehow inside of the universe, even though it wasn't in existence, and created it around him, somehow being inside of a nonexistant universe. Bloody faërie tales. Tch.

'God' could not have been affected by velocity or gravitational fields as such do not exist outside of the universe, unless you're suggesting that 'god' was somehow inside of the universe, even though it wasn't in existence, and created it around him, somehow being inside of a nonexistant universe. Bloody faërie tales. Tch.

Ah, but he could have created them in the first attosecond of the universe, and then put himself inside them for the rest of the job.

Yeah, I can accept that. Not agree with it, of course, but at least it seems well thought out and more logical than saying the world was made in a week 6,000 years ago.

YES!
Recognition by a veteran player!
Huzzah!
:D

I did not get this from a book. My mom & I sat up late one night and had an epiphany.
Sciency people, pay attention.
Energy cannot be created.
Nor can it be destroyed.
It can only change form.
God is energy. Pure energy. This is why he is often depicted as light. God's energy was/is so powerful, that he could/can think and create things.

Everything that is in existance is made of matter/energy.
Humans are made of matter, and we use energy.

Humans were made in God's image, of energy. Energy that became matter: skin, bones, blood, etc.

God is energy, the most powerful source of energy ever. Everything is made of energy. Everything is made of God. The very keyboard I'm typing on is made of "God-energy" converted into matter.

This "God-matter" makes up everything in existance, because everything is made of something, and that something comes from the 'everything'.

In the beginning, there was an extreme amount of energy, just existing, not being used. From this energy was created matter: Stars, planets, solar systems, entire universes. Even athiests have to agree that there was something there, before it all. Anyway, from this massive ball of energy came everything, and from that everything came people.
People, being completely unable to come up with anything* discovered God. The energy from which everything came.
Argh..
Ok. I can't type what I think. It's different in my head, and when I say it out loud, than when I try to type it.
But I think I have gotten the general idea out.
Actually, I may say more later when I am less tired.

*Human beings are completely incapable of thinking up something new. It's not possible, don't even try. Everything you will think of will be made of something else. This cannot be argued. It simply is fact.
Therefore, there had to have been something, someone, that existed: GOD.

Ah, but he could have created them in the first attosecond of the universe, and then put himself inside them for the rest of the job.

An attosecond after the universe was created, the universe was in a state that Alan Guth of MIT calls inflationary state. The inflationary theory basically says that for a small amount of time right after the creation of the universe, the universe expanded at a speed faster than light, and the rules of physics we know of, including the time-space continuim, did not apply to the universe.

I did not get this from a book. My mom & I sat up late one night and had an epiphany.
Sciency people, pay attention.
Energy cannot be created.
Nor can it be destroyed.
It can only change form.
God is energy. Pure energy. This is why he is often depicted as light. God's energy was/is so powerful, that he could/can think and create things.

Everything that is in existance is made of matter/energy.
Humans are made of matter, and we use energy.

Humans were made in God's image, of energy. Energy that became matter: skin, bones, blood, etc.

God is energy, the most powerful source of energy ever. Everything is made of energy. Everything is made of God. The very keyboard I'm typing on is made of "God-energy" converted into matter.

This "God-matter" makes up everything in existance, because everything is made of something, and that something comes from the 'everything'.

In the beginning, there was an extreme amount of energy, just existing, not being used. From this energy was created matter: Stars, planets, solar systems, entire universes. Even athiests have to agree that there was something there, before it all. Anyway, from this massive ball of energy came everything, and from that everything came people.
People, being completely unable to come up with anything* discovered God. The energy from which everything came.
Argh..
Ok. I can't type what I think. It's different in my head, and when I say it out loud, than when I try to type it.
But I think I have gotten the general idea out.
Actually, I may say more later when I am less tired.

*Human beings are completely incapable of thinking up something new. It's not possible, don't even try. Everything you will think of will be made of something else. This cannot be argued. It simply is fact.
Therefore, there had to have been something, someone, that existed: GOD.
Damnit. I know there's a huge logical fallacy in this post, but I can't figure it out.

BTW, there is no such thing as "before" the Big Bang.

Damnit. I know there's a huge logical fallacy in this post, but I can't figure it out.

BTW, there is no such thing as "before" the Big Bang.
The fallacy is that it was an epiphany, which doesn't mean that it was by any means logical. "Before" the big bang is debatable, for at this point with our current understanding we have no method of knowing what happened before the Planck epoch, or 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds after the big bang to be precise. All knowledge of what occured before this is merely speculative. Myself, I find Itzhak Bentov's continuous bang theory explains the phenomenon of Red Shift more elegantly than the Big Bang theory, but thats my opinion and I cannot objectively defend it at this point. Lestavra, you might find traditional Eastern cosmology is somewhat similar and more refined in regards to your post.

I did not get this from a book. My mom & I sat up late one night and had an epiphany.
Sciency people, pay attention.
Energy cannot be created.
Nor can it be destroyed.
It can only change form.
God is energy. Pure energy. This is why he is often depicted as light. God's energy was/is so powerful, that he could/can think and create things.

Everything that is in existance is made of matter/energy.
Humans are made of matter, and we use energy.

Humans were made in God's image, of energy. Energy that became matter: skin, bones, blood, etc.

God is energy, the most powerful source of energy ever. Everything is made of energy. Everything is made of God. The very keyboard I'm typing on is made of "God-energy" converted into matter.

This "God-matter" makes up everything in existance, because everything is made of something, and that something comes from the 'everything'.

In the beginning, there was an extreme amount of energy, just existing, not being used. From this energy was created matter: Stars, planets, solar systems, entire universes. Even athiests have to agree that there was something there, before it all. Anyway, from this massive ball of energy came everything, and from that everything came people.
People, being completely unable to come up with anything* discovered God. The energy from which everything came.
Argh..
Ok. I can't type what I think. It's different in my head, and when I say it out loud, than when I try to type it.
But I think I have gotten the general idea out.
Actually, I may say more later when I am less tired.

*Human beings are completely incapable of thinking up something new. It's not possible, don't even try. Everything you will think of will be made of something else. This cannot be argued. It simply is fact.
Therefore, there had to have been something, someone, that existed: GOD.


Congratulations! Unless you were positing an alternate form of energy, you've just re-invented pantheism.
pantheism, n. [Pan- + theism.] The doctrine that the universe, taken or conceived of as a whole, is God; the doctrine that there is no God but the combined force and laws which are manifested in the existing universe; cosmotheism. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pantheism)
:)
Personally I'd say that's really just re-defineing god into meaninglessness, and you should just use the word universe, as it laready has that established meaning.

If you are positing a alternative to the standard model of physics (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Standard%20Model), you'll have to do a lot better than that.

Newness has nothing to do with it. If someone proposed an alternative to the atomic theory, it is unlikely that it would be taken seriously without a great deal of evidence. While is unlikely scientists will revert to the ancient "four elements" model, they don't just accept theories based on novelty.
The four elements model is still used, in a slightly modified form...

air -> gas
water -> liquid
earth -> solid
fire -> plasma

The 4 phases of matter in chemistry/physics.

Damnit. I know there's a huge logical fallacy in this post, but I can't figure it out.

BTW, there is no such thing as "before" the Big Bang.

Then what caused the Big Bang?
There had to have been something.
Matter cannot be created without energy..

Congratulations! Unless you were positing an alternate form of energy, you've just re-invented pantheism.
[/url]
:)
Personally I'd say that's really just re-defineing god into meaninglessness, and you should just use the word universe, as it laready has that established meaning.

If you are positing a alternative to [url=http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Standard%20Model] the standard model of physics (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pantheism), you'll have to do a lot better than that.


Yes, but you do have to admit, it's pretty good for a fifteen-year-old at one in the morning..
I'm not redefining God, I am just trying to explain my personal beliefs.
I'm just saying, that [hypotheticall] "before" the Big Bang (there had to have been a before), there was a massive amount of energy that made the Big Bang happen. We give the name "God" to that energy, because it created us.
...

Then what caused the Big Bang?
There had to have been something.
Matter cannot be created without energy..
energy is inherent in matter, stored.
and i assume your trying to allude to YOUR God created the big bang, i assume you have some proof that it was YOUR God instead of you know a God from a different religion whose mythology actually sounds like the big bang

One respect in which Evolutionary theory differs from Creation theory is that Evolution is a newer idea.

Now, we all know that newer isn't always better, however, overall change is beneficial.

Changes in medical science are generally accepted as beneficial - people live longer, and their diseases are easier to cure.

Changes in politics are generally accepted as beneficial - in most countries, regularly elected officials make decisions, rather than a monarch or dictator for life.

Changes in telecommunications are generally accepted as beneficial - millions of people have access to almost-instant communication with people from all over the earth, using telephones, e-mail and more.

Changes in transport are generally accepted as beneficial - we can travel farther, faster and in more environmentally friendly ways.

Changes in social attitudes are generally accepted as beneficial - there is far less discrimination on basis of race or gender as there has been.

Changes in computer software are generally accepted as beneficial - there are less bugs, less security holes, and more helpful features.

Changes in the theories of human origin are, however, an exception in some people's opinion. This is unusual, since, with over 100 years having passed since the first edition of "Origin of Species"* by Charles Darwin and modern scientific discoveries supporting evolutionary theory, it is logical to assume that it is correct, at least in basic concepts.

However, a surprisingly large proportion of people believe that evolutionary theory is not only in error, but completely wrong. They disregard up-to-date theories, and the research on which they are based.

In the field of theories human origins, many people take the attitude that change is detrimental, even when they would agree that all the other examples of changes are beneficial overall.

That one questions their logic is unsurprising.



*Full name "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection; or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

This is a really dumb argument. Nobody would argue that change is beneficial if they had thought about it for 20 seconds. Improvements in medical science are beneficial, but changes are just changes. There was a change to advocating bottled formula for babies, and a change back to advocating breast milk. Science is full of dispute, and theories come into fashion and go out of fashion.

Changes in politics are sometimes beneficial. America changes its president every few years, and that change benefits some but not others. The change of politics in Iraq has been disastrous for some people.

When you say changes in telecommunications you mean improvements in telecommunications. If I stole your phone, that would be a change in your telecommunications but it wouldn't help you.

And the people who don't want to go along with the change in theories of the origins of humanity are the same people who would call the changes in social attitudes that you are talking about an abomination that is destroying society.

I'm not one of them. I think social and sexual freedom are great things. I think evolution is a no-brainer. But your argument sucks big logs.

Do you mean that improvements make things better? I don't really think that's worth saying.

energy is inherent in matter, stored.


Yes it is, so where did the matter/energy come from for the big bang? When it comes to the very origins of the universe, there is no scientific explanation for where it came from.

If you answer the question "What caused the big bang?" you get the question "what caused the thing that caused the big bang?" and so on and so on. At least theists can say that god doesn't require a cause or a place to have come from.

I don't care whether God exists or where the universe came from, so I'm neutral in this particular debate. Still, science has no answer.

Yes it is, so where did the matter/energy come from for the big bang? When it comes to the very origins of the universe, there is no scientific explanation for where it came from.

If you answer the question "What caused the big bang?" you get the question "what caused the thing that caused the big bang?" and so on and so on. At least theists can say that god doesn't require a cause or a place to have come from.

I don't care whether God exists or where the universe came from, so I'm neutral in this particular debate. Still, science has no answer.
they can say it all they want, doesnt make it true.

I did not get this from a book. My mom & I sat up late one night and had an epiphany.
Sciency people, pay attention.
Energy cannot be created.
Nor can it be destroyed.
It can only change form.
God is energy. Pure energy. This is why he is often depicted as light. God's energy was/is so powerful, that he could/can think and create things.
Everything that is in existance is made of matter/energy.
Humans are made of matter, and we use energy.

Humans were made in God's image, of energy. Energy that became matter: skin, bones, blood, etc.

God is energy, the most powerful source of energy ever. Everything is made of energy. Everything is made of God. The very keyboard I'm typing on is made of "God-energy" converted into matter.

This "God-matter" makes up everything in existance, because everything is made of something, and that something comes from the 'everything'.

In the beginning, there was an extreme amount of energy, just existing, not being used. From this energy was created matter: Stars, planets, solar systems, entire universes. Even athiests have to agree that there was something there, before it all. Anyway, from this massive ball of energy came everything, and from that everything came people.
People, being completely unable to come up with anything* discovered God. The energy from which everything came.
Argh..
Ok. I can't type what I think. It's different in my head, and when I say it out loud, than when I try to type it.
But I think I have gotten the general idea out.
Actually, I may say more later when I am less tired.

*Human beings are completely incapable of thinking up something new. It's not possible, don't even try. Everything you will think of will be made of something else. This cannot be argued. It simply is fact.
Therefore, there had to have been something, someone, that existed: GOD.

This is called "mysticism". It is a narrative explanation for otherwise inexplicable phenomena, basically a story. Your mystical experience of coming to this conclusion and grasping it with your whole being must have been very involving emotionally. I vaguely remember reading a Hare Krsna book with a similar idea in it. Doesn't stop it being a story, mind.

Also, it is not a fact that "Human beings are completely incapable of thinking up something new". It is a theory, your theory, that "Everything you will think of will be made of something else". I don't really see how the content thoughts can be made of anything. And do you really mean that fax machines weren't thought up by humans because they are made of matter which is made of energy which is made of god? That again, is very mystic but not a very useful thing to say.

At least theists can say that god doesn't require a cause or a place to have come from.

they can say it all they want, doesnt make it true.

It makes it non-contradictory. Unlike the sum of scientific explanation for where the universe came from, which doesn't explain where the universe came from.

I did not get this from a book. My mom & I sat up late one night and had an epiphany.
Sciency people, pay attention.
Energy cannot be created.
Nor can it be destroyed.
It can only change form.
God is energy. Pure energy. This is why he is often depicted as light. God's energy was/is so powerful, that he could/can think and create things.

Everything that is in existance is made of matter/energy.
Humans are made of matter, and we use energy.

Humans were made in God's image, of energy. Energy that became matter: skin, bones, blood, etc.

God is energy, the most powerful source of energy ever. Everything is made of energy. Everything is made of God. The very keyboard I'm typing on is made of "God-energy" converted into matter.

This "God-matter" makes up everything in existance, because everything is made of something, and that something comes from the 'everything'.

In the beginning, there was an extreme amount of energy, just existing, not being used. From this energy was created matter: Stars, planets, solar systems, entire universes. Even athiests have to agree that there was something there, before it all. Anyway, from this massive ball of energy came everything, and from that everything came people.
People, being completely unable to come up with anything* discovered God. The energy from which everything came.
Argh..
Ok. I can't type what I think. It's different in my head, and when I say it out loud, than when I try to type it.
But I think I have gotten the general idea out.
Actually, I may say more later when I am less tired.

*Human beings are completely incapable of thinking up something new. It's not possible, don't even try. Everything you will think of will be made of something else. This cannot be argued. It simply is fact.
Therefore, there had to have been something, someone, that existed: GOD.

nice i like. I think i've heard something similar elsewhere though. zoanostriasm perhaps? not sure but... damn can't remember!!!!

Anyway, ahem.. if god is energy and humans were made in God's image, of energy. Energy that became matter, then the universe itself is god. So perfectly natural. could that not be seen as evolution? becoming more complex and so on. also not all energy became the same thing, so it shows differentiation.

Also we did come up with something original, we came up with god. for without giving it a name it is only energy. By naming it, we created it.

But i will say one thing, that epiphany would probably be the way most agnostics look at things. Has a nice cyclical feel to it. minus the god word that is....

It makes it non-contradictory. Unlike the sum of scientific explanation for where the universe came from, which doesn't explain where the universe came from.

Um... science isn't contradictory.... it simply reserves judgement on what caused the Big Bang.

Ie, we don't know yet.

So religion has stories that, yes, make sense, but can't be proven. Science just doesn't say anything definite on the matter.

Apples and oranges, really.

Um... science isn't contradictory.... it simply reserves judgement on what caused the Big Bang.

Ie, we don't know yet.

So religion has stories that, yes, make sense, but can't be proven. Science just doesn't say anything definite on the matter.

Apples and oranges, really.

Apples and apples of a slightly different colour.

actually Lestravra this thing about....
Human beings are completely incapable of thinking up something new. It's not possible, don't even try. Everything you will think of will be made of something else. This cannot be argued. It simply is fact.
Therefore, there had to have been something, someone, that existed: GOD

would be a great way for religions to make money!!! think about it they can patent the idea of god, and since everything is made from energy/god then we'd have to pay them royalties!!!!

Someone might have said this already, but the argument

"The universe must have been created by God because how else could it exist?"

is stupid, because then we can ask:

"God must have been created by something because how else could it exist?"

ALSO:

The universe did not "come into being" it simply changed from a very small thing into a very large thing in the first few moments of time.

AND:

The big bang theory does not state that God does not exist. Nor does it claim that evolution is the origin of life.

Apples and apples of a slightly different colour.

Um... not really.

One is a story about what came before the start of the universe. The other is an attempt to explain what happened after the universe came into being. It's logical (well, on the surface, to people who demand no proof). But it also leaves no room for any level of understanding. It simply 'is'. It was 'God'. There's no way for us to understand so we should just stop trying.

There isn't an accepted scientific theory about what occured before the Big Bang according to science as far as I know. There are some, but they all have a while to go before they have enough evidence to be accepted. Science in the matter deals mainly with what happened from the Big Bang and after the Big Bang - not before it.

Yes, but you do have to admit, it's pretty good for a fifteen-year-old at one in the morning..
I'm not redefining God, I am just trying to explain my personal beliefs.
I'm just saying, that [hypotheticall] "before" the Big Bang (there had to have been a before), there was a massive amount of energy that made the Big Bang happen. We give the name "God" to that energy, because it created us.
...

The... hypothetical 'before' that had to exist? That's not a hypothesis then.

Science claims there either was no before, or there is currently no physical way for us to know for certain what happened in this 'before'.

So your stance remains unscientific, if you insist there 'had to be' a before. Science so far suggests otherwise.

Neither biblical creation nor the big bang theory have a before, so it cannot be used by one side as an argument against the other.

Doesn't matter ... none of it ... the Elders will soon wake and eat you all.

Carry on with your silly debate, though. In the end, you're just food ... probably to be pureed and served with goat.

Edit: This is my 1337 post. :D

Basically all it comes down to is that the ideas behind the Universe are so bizarre and unintelligible to the average person, waving a magic wand and saying "God did it!" is more comforting.
If you believe the Bible is meant to be the word of God, which is immutable, to attempt to change anything in it by saying for example that 1 week isn't 1 week but Billions of years is an absurdity. You are in fact contradicting God. You're altering what He said to accomodate new Scientific information.

From 'Closer to Truth'
http://www.closertotruth.com/topics/universemeaning/105/105transcript.html

"The Argument from Design, also known as the teleological argument (explaining things by their ends or purposes), is largely and long discredited. The argument is based on analogy: put simply, since a watch was created by a watchmaker, the universe was Created by a Universe-Maker. Fallacies include the nature of probability theory and the absence of external comparisons against which we can judge the putative design of the universe. Atheistic interpretations of Big Bang cosmology are represented by Quentin Smith, a philosopher of science. He states that "the thesis that the universe has an originating divine cause is logically inconsistent with all extant definitions of causality… and that these arguments, traditionally understood as arguments for the existence of God, are in fact arguments for the nonexistence of God." He asserts that since "the earliest state of the universe is not guaranteed to evolve into an animate state of the universe…[it is] inconsistent with the hypothesis that God created the earliest state of the universe, since it is true of God that if he created the earliest state of the universe, then he would have ensured that this state is animate or evolves into animate states of the universe. It is essential to the idea of God in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition that if he creates a universe, he creates an animate universe, and therefore that if he creates a first state of the universe, he creates a state that is, or is guaranteed to evolve into, an animate state." Smith concludes that Big Bang cosmology necessitates that the universe "…exists non-necessarily, improbably, and causelessly. It exists for absolutely no reason at all." Smith's arguments, as one would expect, is subject to critique, such as by Christian philosopher William Lane Craig. Craig maintains that "there must be an actual cause for anything's coming to exist. In the case of creation, there was not anything physically prior to the [Big Bang] singularity. Therefore, it is impossible that the potentiality of the existence of the universe lay in itself, since it did not exist. On the theistic view, the potentiality of the universe's existence lay in the power of God to create it. On the atheistic interpretation, on the other hand, there did not even exist any potentiality for the existence of the universe. But then it seems inconceivable that the universe should come to be actual if there did not exist any potentiality for its existence… [therefore] the atheistic interpretation [of Big Bang cosmology] is less simple, has zero explanatory power, and in the end degenerates into metaphysical absurdity."

The four elements model is still used, in a slightly modified form...

air -> gas
water -> liquid
earth -> solid
fire -> plasma

The 4 phases of matter in chemistry/physics.

what happened to the fifth?

Bose-Einstein Condensation

actually Lestravra this thing about....
Human beings are completely incapable of thinking up something new. It's not possible, don't even try. Everything you will think of will be made of something else. This cannot be argued. It simply is fact.
Therefore, there had to have been something, someone, that existed: GOD

would be a great way for religions to make money!!! think about it they can patent the idea of god, and since everything is made from energy/god then we'd have to pay them royalties!!!!

That's how it works now, surely? "God created everything, we're the ones who talk to God. Worship God in our premises, donate money to our causes, help to spread the word and you are entitled to membership in more exclusive and sought-after part of the afterlife, if you don't you owe us/Him some time in Pergatory or even Hell until you've paid off your infinite debt to Him."

(Give or take...)

Um... not really.

One is a story about what came before the start of the universe. The other is an attempt to explain what happened after the universe came into being. It's logical (well, on the surface, to people who demand no proof). But it also leaves no room for any level of understanding. It simply 'is'. It was 'God'. There's no way for us to understand so we should just stop trying.

There isn't an accepted scientific theory about what occured before the Big Bang according to science as far as I know. There are some, but they all have a while to go before they have enough evidence to be accepted. Science in the matter deals mainly with what happened from the Big Bang and after the Big Bang - not before it.

There needn't be anything before the big bang. to say there was something before the big bang implies that you believe time is like a railroad, infinite on both sides, and moving in one direction and completely independent from the universe. anyone who has read even an introduction into einstein's idea's about relativity will know that our current theories don't use this concept of time anymore. it looks like time cannot be seperated from matter and space.

Neither biblical creation nor the big bang theory have a before, so it cannot be used by one side as an argument against the other.

creation has a before. before creation there was just god.

There needn't be anything before the big bang. to say there was something before the big bang implies that you believe time is like a railroad, infinite on both sides, and moving in one direction and completely independent from the universe. anyone who has read even an introduction into einstein's idea's about relativity will know that our current theories don't use this concept of time anymore. it looks like time cannot be seperated from matter and space.


You are saying that "before" needs time and so there can't be a "before the big bang". Maybe we can't say "before the big bang" and we can't say "what caused the bb" because you don't want to apply causality.

This isn't really the point. The theistic point is "how did the universe come into being?" and as both theists and scientists have pointed out, big bang doesn't explain this.

Basically all it comes down to is that the ideas behind the Universe are so bizarre and unintelligible to the average person, waving a magic wand and saying "God did it!" is more comforting.

...

But then it seems inconceivable that the universe should come to be actual if there did not exist any potentiality for its existence… [therefore] the atheistic interpretation [of Big Bang cosmology] is less simple, has zero explanatory power, and in the end degenerates into metaphysical absurdity."

Or they are so bizarre, unintelligible etc that saying the universe came into being from a point at which it had no potential to come into being is more comforting?

There needn't be anything before the big bang. to say there was something before the big bang implies that you believe time is like a railroad, infinite on both sides, and moving in one direction and completely independent from the universe. anyone who has read even an introduction into einstein's idea's about relativity will know that our current theories don't use this concept of time anymore. it looks like time cannot be seperated from matter and space.
Well actually I think he was refering to physical evidence. Now that is the main thing anti-Big Bang/Non-Creation people like to say. We only use physical evidence to provide the basis for our theories (I'm keeping this simple, lets not go into things most people aren't going to understand), thereby a lack of that type of evidence makes us wrong somehow. The problem is that neither side has, nor can it have, physical evidence of either the cause of the Big Bang/Universal Start or what happened before it. For all we know the Big Bang was caused by all matter having been collected into a handful of black holes, which then then collected each other until finally everything was packed into a tiny little area at which point the laws of physics no matter applied and the whole thing exploded. We don't know, we can't know for at the moment that the universe "started" or "restarted" or however you care to look at it, the evidence of what it had been vanished through the pure force of the event. This is like explaining why a nuclear bomb detonating next to a beatle isn't going to leave you much physical evidence that the beatle was there before hand. The fact is that when we enter into debates on time, any number of issues come up from theories on space-time, to frame-shift universe ideas, to who knows what else.

Thereby science does what it is supposed to. It works off of the evidence it has, and tries to deduce the reasons behind everything it can physically prove, and make educated guesses on what it cannot, based off the evidence of other things. Thats why we say it was a Big Bang, because the Universe is expanding, not the Big Contraction (i.e. all matter was spread out, and has since condenses into bigger and bigger things...aka nonsense without any evidence).


And a random other question to the last post I can see, by Clonetopia: If God existed before, when did God begin to Exist, because if Creation has a definite time after God, then God has to have a definite time before, and what was that? The before the Big Bang and before God are both valid if either are valid.

Or they are so bizarre, unintelligible etc that saying the universe came into being from a point at which it had no potential to come into being is more comforting?
Well no, the whole point of the Big Bang is that it explains what happened after the Big Bang, not what caused it. Those are two entirely different theories. We don't say that when a bomb explodes and thereby creates a shockwave that somehow the explanation of the effects of the shockwave are in any way effected by what causes the bomb to explode. Those are two different things entirely. The consequences of an effect and the cause of that effect are not intrinsically linked, especially not at the universal scale we are talking about. The fact is we don't offer any reasons for the Big Bang because scientifically we don't know yet, and unlike other groups arguing their side's stance, we don't just make things up without factual evidence to support it.

You are saying that "before" needs time and so there can't be a "before the big bang". Maybe we can't say "before the big bang" and we can't say "what caused the bb" because you don't want to apply causality.

This isn't really the point. The theistic point is "how did the universe come into being?" and as both theists and scientists have pointed out, big bang doesn't explain this.

If you imagine time's arrow as just 'a result of the nature of the universe' much as a compas needle points in a fairly consistent direction 'as a result of the nature of the Earth' then the argument of "what came before the Big Bang" is equatable to "what is north of the North Pole"... (or south of the South Pole).

If the Universe came about through a process that is as indepentant of Time as the formation of Earth is about the magnetic fields (marginally less so, in fact) then the Universe is there, fixed in its ultimate shape of past, present and future much as Earth has its latitudes and it is only the creatures who are 'doomed' to travel down its lines of longitude and have, as their Causaility, 'what happened to them before they got this far south' that wonder 'what did we come from before we all came from the North Pole' or whatever.

If you're interested, you can work out the repurcussions, but I know I'm not going to make any converts to the idea. This all fairly closely matches up to M-Theory (collisions between Branes and all, in space and/or time dimensions outside of those four that we deal with normally) but only roughly due to the awkwardness of the metaphor being employed in this instance... :)

(Problems with the metaphor: We also have actual time, the compunction to travel from one pole to the other isn't explained, we can't explain how beings a certain distance through their travel are unable to tell their compatriots behind what they are about to encounter, there's an assumed 'big crunch' at the destination Pole. Any more?)

*Whistles the "Yet Again My Posts Strike Fear Into the Hearts of the Irrational" song*

Then what caused the Big Bang?
There had to have been something.
Matter cannot be created without energy..
Nothing. Particles spring into existence all the time for no reason. Most of the time they are immediately annihlated by the antimatter particle that springs into being at the same time, but sometimes they aren't. It's a well-documented phenomenon.

Doesn't matter ... none of it ... the Elders will soon wake and eat you all.
Zi dingir anna kanpa. Zi dingir kia kanpa.

Zi dingir anna kanpa. Zi dingir kia kanpa.


Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulu R'leyh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

creation has a before. before creation there was just god.

I thought it was believed that time was a property God gave to the universe

Firstly let's get this straight. Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism is not a scientific theory, it is a dogma based creation story based solely on stories in the old testament.

The theory of evolution is based on observations and rigorous tests. Creationism isn't; it is based on blind belief in what your church tells you.

You cannot compare the two and have them argue it out because it is comparing apples and oranges.

Creationism is like saying, "A gnome turns off my fridge light. Nope, never seen the gnome, but my religious text supports this firmly." Evolution is like, "Based on everything we know about fridges... there is no gnome. If we see one, well... then we'll revise our theory, but at the moment there is no room in our theory of fridges for gnomes."

Can creationism be proven to be true? No. Can it be proven to be false? No. Can evidence be found to support creationism? Maybe, but very little evidence supports this idea. Does that mean creationism isn't true? Not necessarily, it just means the evidence we have doesn't support the idea.

Can a theory ever be proven true? No, because there can always be some factor that we have not observed yet. In most cases, a theory fits so well to observed phenomena that it is for all intents and purposes, True.

This is another reason why 'intelligent design' isn't a scientific theory. There is no evidence supporting it.

Off-topic thought: How long it took God to make the world depends on God's velocity at the time, and the strength of the gravitational field he was subject two (or curvature of spacetime to be more accurate).

Ok, but then again, God isn't subject to all that rigamorale; He's God, He can do what He wants. LoL

creation has a before. before creation there was just god.

Actually, according to Torah, God was created with the beginning. Before the beginning, there was only ... well ... hard to explain ....

According to the language of Torah, before Gen 1:1 there was only Spirit (Kether). Christians call this "The Word" ... a reasonable description. Most rational thinkers tend to think more along the lines of Cthulu. (snicker)

I was contemplating this very thing the other day and came to a simple conclusion: it doesn't matter. It really doesn't. Finding out what was going on pre-Creation or pre-Bang would not change one single iota of anything. If whatever was going on is scientifically proven beyond all doubt, Christians will still be Christians.

I don't understand how you can believe in something that has not been proven.
This, from someone who presumably believes the bible! In line with your own tenets, may I suggest you remove the beam from your own eye before worrying about the motes in others'.

Actually, according to Torah, God was created with the beginning. Before the beginning, there was only ... well ... hard to explain ....

According to the language of Torah, before Gen 1:1 there was only Spirit (Kether). Christians call this "The Word" ... a reasonable description. Most rational thinkers tend to think more along the lines of Cthulu. (snicker)

I was contemplating this very thing the other day and came to a simple conclusion: it doesn't matter. It really doesn't. Finding out what was going on pre-Creation or pre-Bang would not change one single iota of anything. If whatever was going on is scientifically proven beyond all doubt, Christians will still be Christians.

in the beginning was the word, and the word was god, etc etc. In this case, I think, the beginning is before the universe, so before the universe there was god, and before the beginning... yeah ok.

And I'm sure it doesn't matter. Since you can't disprove God, all manner of religions will always exist, I'm pretty certain.

I refuse to let this thread die..

energy is inherent in matter, stored.
and i assume your trying to allude to YOUR God created the big bang, i assume you have some proof that it was YOUR God instead of you know a God from a different religion whose mythology actually sounds like the big bang
I have no proof that is was MY God, except the Bible, which has been accepted my many as an actual historical document written by people that have been proven to exist in the past.
I honestly don't know if God is real or not, but I believe he is, and I live according to the commandments in the Bible.
Honestly, even if he's not real, and there is no God or Satan, or Heaven, or Hell, you don't need to worry about it. If I'm wasting my life only to die, and I'm a meaningless random assortment of electrons, what does it matter what I do with my life?
So, I have no proof that there even is a God..
What proof does anyone have that there is no God?
It's all about belief.
People can believe there is no God, or that Buddah is the real creator, or whatever..
But no one has any real proof..
I can truthfully say that I have felt the presence of God, I have seen an angel, I have been saved, and I believe that there is a God, Jesus is his son who died to save me, and that when I die, I will go to Heaven.
And if there was some way I could get you people to understand, I would in a heartbeat. It literally tears me up that so many of you don't know God.
:headbang:
Also, it is not a fact that "Human beings are completely incapable of thinking up something new". It is a theory, your theory, that "Everything you will think of will be made of something else". I don't really see how the content thoughts can be made of anything. And do you really mean that fax machines weren't thought up by humans because they are made of matter which is made of energy which is made of god? That again, is very mystic but not a very useful thing to say.
It's not MY theory, I read it somewhere. It's a scientific fact.
Fax machines were made of plasic, metal, etc.: all were in existance before fax machines. They run on electricity, which was discovered before the invention of fax machines.
All things in existance were made or discovered from something that existed before. :)
Fax machines wouldn't exist if someone hadn't invented plastic, if no one had discovered electricity, or if people hadn't begun using metal to make things.
The idea of the fax machine was thought up by humans, but if God hadn't given humans the ability to think and create, there would be no fax machines..
Anyway, ahem.. if god is energy and humans were made in God's image, of energy. Energy that became matter, then the universe itself is god.
Yes, that's exactly the point I've been trying to make. :headbang:
Also we did come up with something original, we came up with god. for without giving it a name it is only energy. By naming it, we created it.
We didn't come up with God, he already existed.
That's like saying Sir Richard Owen invented dinosaurs. :rolleyes:
actually Lestravra this thing about....
Human beings are completely incapable of thinking up something new. It's not possible, don't even try. Everything you will think of will be made of something else. This cannot be argued. It simply is fact.
Therefore, there had to have been something, someone, that existed: GOD

would be a great way for religions to make money!!! think about it they can patent the idea of god, and since everything is made from energy/god then we'd have to pay them royalties!!!!
I realize this is sarcasm, but I am replying anyway..
That would be like patenting air and saying because you patented it, only you could breathe unless everyone in the world payed you, and if they didn't pay you, you'd suffocate them. :rolleyes:
The... hypothetical 'before' that had to exist? That's not a hypothesis then.

Science claims there either was no before, or there is currently no physical way for us to know for certain what happened in this 'before'.

So your stance remains unscientific, if you insist there 'had to be' a before. Science so far suggests otherwise.
If there was no 'before', there can be no 'now'. Time is an infinite loop (actually, a bunch of intercrossing loops).
You're right that there is no way to know what there was 'before'.
But (this hurts my head) before there was anything, there was something, and that something created everything.
Neither biblical creation nor the big bang theory have a before, so it cannot be used by one side as an argument against the other.
In the beginning, there was God.
Just out there existing. Well, not really 'out there', because there was no 'out there', but.. still..
If you believe the Bible is meant to be the word of God, which is immutable, to attempt to change anything in it by saying for example that 1 week isn't 1 week but Billions of years is an absurdity. You are in fact contradicting God. You're altering what He said to accomodate new Scientific information.
Yes, the Bible is the word of God, but re-read my post. Quantum stuff, and the like, would have been a major breakthrough back then. The world wouldn't've been able to handle the information.
Granted, God could have just made it where they understood, but that would have completely changed the course of history. It also said in the Bible that we should sacrifice goats, never touch a woman during menstruation, men can marry more than one woman, and that anyone who eats shrimp should be put to death. These are examples of how the Bible must change to accomodate technology.
It's not the same as changing the word of God. The Bible was written to accomodate the people and advancements of thousands of years ago.
Craig maintains that "there must be an actual cause for anything's coming to exist. In the case of creation, there was not anything physically prior to the [Big Bang] singularity. Therefore, it is impossible that the potentiality of the existence of the universe lay in itself, since it did not exist. On the theistic view, the potentiality of the universe's existence lay in the power of God to create it. On the atheistic interpretation, on the other hand, there did not even exist any potentiality for the existence of the universe. But then it seems inconceivable that the universe should come to be actual if there did not exist any potentiality for its existence… [therefore] the atheistic interpretation [of Big Bang cosmology] is less simple, has zero explanatory power, and in the end degenerates into metaphysical absurdity."
That's exactly what I've been trying to explain. There HAD TO HAVE BEEN SOMETHING OR THERE WOULD BE NOTHING. :headbang:
Thank you..
Nothing. Particles spring into existence all the time for no reason. Most of the time they are immediately annihlated by the antimatter particle that springs into being at the same time, but sometimes they aren't. It's a well-documented phenomenon.
You just contradicted everything they teach in high schools anywhere in the US. :confused: I can't argue with you because I don't know if that's true or not. I could do research, but I don't want to.
So I will simply shake my fist in what I assume to be your general direction.
*shakes fist* :mad:
I thought it was believed that time was a property God gave to the universe
Kind of.. Without God, there would be no time.
The universe is time.
God is the universe.
God is time.
Well, in a sense..
Time is a property of God, that He created with the Big Bang. That's why before the BB, there is no evidence of time. However, there was God
If God wanted to stop time, He could. :)

ah, but debating grows wearisome.. :(

Basically all it comes down to is that the ideas behind the Universe are so bizarre and unintelligible to the average person, waving a magic wand and saying "God did it!" is more comforting.
If you believe the Bible is meant to be the word of God, which is immutable, to attempt to change anything in it by saying for example that 1 week isn't 1 week but Billions of years is an absurdity. You are in fact contradicting God. You're altering what He said to accomodate new Scientific information.

So, which of the *two* creation stories in the Bible do you believe? The priestly or the Yahwistic? And how do you choose between them if you believe that the Bible is the immutable word of God?

A cheap shot, for which I apologise, but in the interests of general education...

People can believe there is no God, or that Buddah is the real creator, or whatever..
If the latter, they ain't Buddhists, who are under the impression that Buddha was a bloke. (Not a God.)

[Originally Posted by CthulhuFhtagn
Nothing. Particles spring into existence all the time for no reason. Most of the time they are immediately annihlated by the antimatter particle that springs into being at the same time, but sometimes they aren't. It's a well-documented phenomenon. ]

You just contradicted everything they teach in high schools anywhere in the US. :confused: I can't argue with you because I don't know if that's true or not. I could do research, but I don't want to.


Not just well-documented, but well documented for at least twenty years as I recall. Sorry.

But you're probably right - not something to be found on most school curricula. It would be confusing without proper context.