Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[McBell]

Every existence within the spacetime block needs a "why".

Says who?

The existence of spacetime itself needs a "why."

Says who?

but the series of that cascading dependencies stops at the first cause. The first cause existence is necessarily beyond spacetime. A realm where limits, dependencies or beginnings cease to exist. Beyond the limits of spacetime, The first cause would necessarily have no beginning. Spacetime existence depends on the first cause but the "first" cause wouldn't have any dependency.

You have not demonstrated a first first.
In fact, you have not demonstrated that a "why" is required.

 

[NoorNoor]

the fact that god created everything doesn't speak to your particular claim that Design implies intelligence, because, as we've seen, the design of snowflakes doesn't need any intelligence.

We didn't see that snowflakes doesn't need any intelligence. A Snowflake shape is governed by physical laws. The shape imposed by physical laws manifests order. Order implies design. Deign implies intelligence.

 

[Skwim]

We didn't see that snowflakes doesn't need any intelligence. A Snowflake shape is governed by physical laws. The shape imposed by physical laws manifests order. Order implies design. Deign implies intelligence.

Ya know, repeating it over and over doesn't make it any more true. Sorry you're unable to understand.


.

 

[NoorNoor]

Ya know, repeating it over and over doesn't make it any more true. Sorry you're unable to understand.


.

Repeating an answer is only a trial to make you understand it. Order exists. It implies design. The snowflake is no exception. The snowflakes don't just appear. It's appearance is controlled by a process. The process is not random. It manifests order.

 

[McBell]

Repeating an answer is only a trial to make you understand it. Order exists. It implies design. The snowflake is no exception. The snowflakes don't just appear. It's appearance is controlled by a process. The process is not random. It manifests order.

implies does not equate require.
At best you have a choir member philosophical argument.

 

[Sapiens]

Why the snowflakes? Yes, snowflakes are nice example of order and beauty but it's not really different than any other example. It's not about the snow flakes. It's about the forces in effect (physical laws) that controls the shape of the snowflake or any other physical element. These laws are Like a factory that makes millions of products. The factory itself is a design and same are the products.



Time is the fourth dimension of the spacetime block. God's existence (as the first cause) is necessarily beyond/external to spacetime. There is no objective flow of time. In that realm, the limitation of time would be meaningless.

 

[Zosimus]

There is a game in which one hides a candy in one's hand, and the other player must guess which hand the candy is in. If the guesser wins, he or she eats the candy. If the guesser loses, then the game starts again.

Children can be taught to play the game. They can also be taught to hide the candy in one's hand. However, children under a certain age play the game differently from the way we do. They hide the candy in their hand, but they take no care for the thought that the other person can see in which hand the candy has been hidden. Their brains have not reached a sufficient point of maturity to permit them to realize that the other person can see where they have placed the candy. A few years later, however, the person is very careful to hide the candy with his or her hands behind his or her back so as to ensure that the other player cannot see where the candy has been hidden.

Sometimes you remind me of those very young children who cannot mentally place themselves in the other person's place to determine what this person can or cannot see.

You see, if a Christian thinks that God has designed everything and that order is evidence for the same, then it is ridiculous to claim that snowflakes are undesigned things that show order. Obviously, a Christian who claims that God has designed everything believes that God has designed snowflakes!

 

[Sapiens]

There is a game in which one hides a candy in one's hand, and the other player must guess which hand the candy is in. If the guesser wins, he or she eats the candy. If the guesser loses, then the game starts again.

Children can be taught to play the game. They can also be taught to hide the candy in one's hand. However, children under a certain age play the game differently from the way we do. They hide the candy in their hand, but they take no care for the thought that the other person can see in which hand the candy has been hidden. Their brains have not reached a sufficient point of maturity to permit them to realize that the other person can see where they have placed the candy. A few years later, however, the person is very careful to hide the candy with his or her hands behind his or her back so as to ensure that the other player cannot see where the candy has been hidden.

Sometimes you remind me of those very young children who cannot mentally place themselves in the other person's place to determine what this person can or cannot see.

You see, if a Christian thinks that God has designed everything and that order is evidence for the same, then it is ridiculous to claim that snowflakes are undesigned things that show order. Obviously, a Christian who claims that God has designed everything believes that God has designed snowflakes!

That just shows how ridiculous the Christian concept is. You see, we know what "designs" snowflakes and species ... the best the theists can do is invoke a deist style kick start construct, because there is not evidence that supports their fables, only arguments from ignorance and gods of the gap.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

There is a game in which one hides a candy in one's hand, and the other player must guess which hand the candy is in. If the guesser wins, he or she eats the candy. If the guesser loses, then the game starts again.

Children can be taught to play the game. They can also be taught to hide the candy in one's hand. However, children under a certain age play the game differently from the way we do. They hide the candy in their hand, but they take no care for the thought that the other person can see in which hand the candy has been hidden. Their brains have not reached a sufficient point of maturity to permit them to realize that the other person can see where they have placed the candy. A few years later, however, the person is very careful to hide the candy with his or her hands behind his or her back so as to ensure that the other player cannot see where the candy has been hidden.

Sometimes you remind me of those very young children who cannot mentally place themselves in the other person's place to determine what this person can or cannot see.

Maybe that's because we expect adults to think like adults and can't understand why adults continue infantile thought processes.

 

[Zosimus]

Maybe that's because we expect adults to think like adults and can't understand why adults continue infantile thought processes.

No, seriously. Why do atheists ask questions like the one Christopher Hitchens asked along the lines of why did God wait 98,000 years to talk to Moses. WTF? Was he unaware that Christians think that the universe was created in 6 days and that the first man was created out of dust less than 6,000 years ago?!

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Why do atheists ask questions like the one Christopher Hitchens asked along the lines of why did God wait 98,000 years to talk to Moses.

An appeal to logic.

WTF? Was he unaware that Christians think that the universe was created in 6 days and that the first man was created out of dust less than 6,000 years ago?!

Because young earth creationists are a minority, even among the Christian religion. So, in reality, only a small percentage of "Christians think that the universe was created in 6 days and that the first man was created out of dust less than 6,000 years ago".

 

[Sapiens]

I believe the YECs are down to about 15%.

 

[Zosimus]

I believe the YECs are down to about 15%.

Forty-two percent of Americans believe that God created the Earth less than 10,000 years ago.

 

[Sapiens]

Forty-two percent of Americans believe that God created the Earth less than 10,000 years ago.

Your source please, not that it really matters since facts are not discovered by plebiscite.

:"A new study, sponsored by the BioLogos Foundation and conducted by Calvin College sociologist Jonathan Hill, explores beliefs about evolution and creation in greater detail. The results show far more nuance, variation, and doubt than is commonly supposed. Most Americans do believe God created us. But the harder you press about historical claims in the Bible, the less confident people are. The percentage who stand by young-Earth creationism dwindles all the way to 15 percent."

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ns_believe_the_bible_is_literal_inerrant.html

 

[Zosimus]

Your source please, not that it really matters since facts are not discovered by plebiscite.

:"A new study, sponsored by the BioLogos Foundation and conducted by Calvin College sociologist Jonathan Hill, explores beliefs about evolution and creation in greater detail. The results show far more nuance, variation, and doubt than is commonly supposed. Most Americans do believe God created us. But the harder you press about historical claims in the Bible, the less confident people are. The percentage who stand by young-Earth creationism dwindles all the way to 15 percent."

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ns_believe_the_bible_is_literal_inerrant.html

What's wrong? You don't know how to use Google?

http://www.livescience.com/46123-many-americans-creationists.html
http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx
http://io9.gizmodo.com/42-of-americans-believe-god-created-humans-10-000-year-1586064159
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/02/creationism-america-survey_n_5434107.html
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/mic...ns-believe-god-created-humans-10000-years-ago

As for your link, all that really shows is that badly designed polls can have biases.

 

[NoorNoor]

The discussion was about "order requires design" and all the sudden, it was shifted to some irrelevant arguments about Christian beliefs and Young earth creationists . Did anyone notice that we have been talking about a creation point at the big bang (about 14 billion years ago)? These specific Christian beliefs are totally irrelevant to the discussion.

Theism or Creationism in general is not against science. Theism is necessarily about a belief in a Deity but not necessarily a belief in details such as "YEC".
Theism acknowledges and encourages every thing science has to offer but may not specifically accept some interpretations of the theory of evolution.

Through out history and till now, Theist scientists have provided a lot to modern science. No one can deny that. The only difference is that Theism will go further beyond the point where science stops. If some one wants to discredit all Historical accounts and the beliefs of billions of theists today, then, at least he should provide evidence that those historical accounts are not true and provide evidence that """God doesn't exist""".

The atheist idea that the existence of the creator/ first cause for our existence can be only accepted through some typical scientific tests, is ridiculous. By definition, God (the creator) is not subject to same rules of our physical world (the creation). God' existence can be recognized through his influence as the a first cause at the creation point of our universe and through the order that is clearly manifested in our universe.

Here are some of my earlier comments regarding the same subject
"Whatever you try to utilize to understand God, would be something that existed after the creation (after the big bang). Its not logical to assume that the rules that control the creation would apply to the creator himself. He has to be external to it simply because it didn't have any existence before the beginning. Space, time, matter, physical laws didn't have any meaning before the beginning. To us, it's only an undefined zone where science itself stops simply because science depends on observations of what happen after the beginning. In other words limits of creation can't be imposed on the creator in a trial to understand him. "

Again, as a reminder, the earlier subject of discussion was "Order requires design, design requires intelligence". I beleive that is true for anything that manifests order.

 

[gnostic]

Theism or Creationism in general is not against science.

Creationism is against science.

Creationists always associate science with atheism, which showed their levels of stupidity and biases.

But it is true that not all theists are against science. Some are, some are not.

It really depends on if the individual theist's education.

If a theist is a scientist in his (or her) profession, and he disagree with certain scientific finding, then that okay, as long as he can provide verifiable evidences or data to support his argument. If he cannot provide evidences, then no one should accept his unsubstantiated claim.

But if theist is not a scientist or he has only just high school science, then he is making claim based on his ignorance and his religion, which have nothing to do with science. Such a theist is only at best, an apologist for his religion, and only expressing his personal opinion or personal belief. Such a person shouldn't be taken seriously, if he wish to debate on scientific matters.

My experience with encounters with creationists in this forum, and other forums like this, seemed to lack integrity and honesty.

 

[gnostic]

No, seriously. Why do atheists ask questions like the one Christopher Hitchens asked along the lines of why did God wait 98,000 years to talk to Moses. WTF? Was he unaware that Christians think that the universe was created in 6 days and that the first man was created out of dust less than 6,000 years ago?!

Not all Christians believe in the creation story as historical or scientific.

There are number of Christians here, who believe that Genesis 1 to 3 is a allegory, not to be read or taken literally.

The value of this allegory with regarding to moral (right and wrong), and that disobeying God is wrong. Genesis 1 to 3, have nothing to do with being historical or scientifically accurate.

To do so, only make people find faults with Genesis creation, thereby devaluing the richness of the myth.

And you are completely ignoring fact that there are a number of Christians here, who do understand and accept evolution as valid explanation for why and how life change over period of generations (time).

 

[Sapiens]

What's wrong? You don't know how to use Google?

http://www.livescience.com/46123-many-americans-creationists.html
http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx
http://io9.gizmodo.com/42-of-americans-believe-god-created-humans-10-000-year-1586064159
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/02/creationism-america-survey_n_5434107.html
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/mic...ns-believe-god-created-humans-10000-years-ago

As for your link, all that really shows is that badly designed polls can have biases.

Yes, badly designed pools can have biases, that is the point of this new poll that attempt to remove the biases and provide a clearer and more accurate picture.

 

[Sapiens]

The discussion was about "order requires design" and all the sudden, it was shifted to some irrelevant arguments about Christian beliefs and Young earth creationists . Did anyone notice that we have been talking about a creation point at the big bang (about 14 billion years ago)? These specific Christian beliefs are totally irrelevant to the discussion.

Theism or Creationism in general is not against science. Theism is necessarily about a belief in a Deity but not necessarily a belief in details such as "YEC".
Theism acknowledges and encourages every thing science has to offer but may not specifically accept some interpretations of the theory of evolution.

Through out history and till now, Theist scientists have provided a lot to modern science. No one can deny that. The only difference is that Theism will go further beyond the point where science stops. If some one wants to discredit all Historical accounts and the beliefs of billions of theists today, then, at least he should provide evidence that those historical accounts are not true and provide evidence that """God doesn't exist""".

The atheist idea that the existence of the creator/ first cause for our existence can be only accepted through some typical scientific tests, is ridiculous. By definition, God (the creator) is not subject to same rules of our physical world (the creation). God' existence can be recognized through his influence as the a first cause at the creation point of our universe and through the order that is clearly manifested in our universe.

Here are some of my earlier comments regarding the same subject
"Whatever you try to utilize to understand God, would be something that existed after the creation (after the big bang). Its not logical to assume that the rules that control the creation would apply to the creator himself. He has to be external to it simply because it didn't have any existence before the beginning. Space, time, matter, physical laws didn't have any meaning before the beginning. To us, it's only an undefined zone where science itself stops simply because science depends on observations of what happen after the beginning. In other words limits of creation can't be imposed on the creator in a trial to understand him. "

Again, as a reminder, the earlier subject of discussion was "Order requires design, design requires intelligence". I beleive that is true for anything that manifests order.

Actually the topic is "evolution vs creation" so the Big Bang is off topic.