Flaw in Creationism

[fantome profane]

You don't get a point for contradiction. That's not how the game works.

That is how the game works.

(one point for me )

 

[Dunemeister]

Not very, but you did say there was one, so to the extent you thought that was relevant, so is my point that there isn't.

Ah. I said there's "a growing theological consensus" (emphasis added). So certainly it's not complete. But it has some value given that such consensus is extremely rare in biblical studies. It means that advocates from all sides are making concessions and finding common ground (an immensely good thing IMHO).

Of course, this point is mostly rhetorical. Consensuses come and go. But the issue of consensus is unimportant and my arguments don't depend on it.

 

[Autodidact]

Holy crap! Are you the supersport of FSTDT.com fame (see sig)? You're legendary!

Yes, ask him about Lamarckism, butterfly wombs and the speed of light. You will find it delightful.

 

[Autodidact]

There is evidence for creation which can be researched easily on the internet but since evolutionism doesn't generally accept the possibility of a creator god it is automatically rejected for more "scientific" explanations.

So did you find this evidence yet? It seems like it wouldn't be a problem, since its easily researched on the internet and everything.

These kinds of debates can only lead to dead ends.

Yeah, like people who say there's easily available evidence, then fail to provide it. I'm so disappointed! I could have learned the truth about God!

 

[Autodidact]

Ah. I said there's "a growing theological consensus" (emphasis added). So certainly it's not complete. But it has some value given that such consensus is extremely rare in biblical studies. It means that advocates from all sides are making concessions and finding common ground (an immensely good thing IMHO).

Of course, this point is mostly rhetorical. Consensuses come and go. But the issue of consensus is unimportant and my arguments don't depend on it.

Well, if you take all the theologians of all the religions in the world, what percentage of them do you think would agree with your description regarding creation?

O.K., why not just say it's your opinion about to interpret your holy book then?

 

[Laughing Man]

ridiculous statement. Creationists believe that The God of the Universe who has the power and ability to create the universe is the One who created it. Zeus does not have that power or ability, thus could not have done so.

OMFG I hope it is supersport off of fstdt that would be fantastic!!!)(

 

[darkendless]

ridiculous statement. Creationists believe that The God of the Universe who has the power and ability to create the universe is the One who created it. Zeus does not have that power or ability, thus could not have done so.

Well you pointed out the flaw right there, creationism has nothing to do with anything but religion and the people who follow it.
At least scientific theories propose answers that can be verified by other scientists. Having watched a show where Christians argued with science, im pretty sure there is nothing to support creationism but the bible, and picking holes through evolutionary theories.

 

[Arlanbb]

May I suggest the following ~ Because everything we see and feel has a beginning and an end our minds can not see past that concept. We would have to have a different outlook on things in the universe to think of it as always being there. We can not comprehend no beginning and no end. arlan

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

I'm not a science expert. But there are a few reasons why the universe cannot have always existed.

We know for a fact that the universe is expanding and, is in fact, speeding up in said expansion. Implying that, at some point, everything in the universe was much closer together - perhaps even at a single point.

.

ch 51:47-56
47 We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof).

48 And the earth have We laid out, how gracious is the Spreader (thereof)!

49 And all things We have created by pairs, that haply ye may reflect.

50 Therefor flee unto Allah; lo! I am a plain warner unto you from him.

51 And set not any other god along with Allah; lo! I am a plain warner unto you from Him.

52 Even so there came no messenger unto those before them but they said: A wizard or a madman!

53 Have they handed down (the saying) as an heirloom one unto another ? Nay, but they are froward folk.

54 So withdraw from them (O Muhammad), for thou art in no wise blameworthy,

55 And warn, for warning profiteth believers.

56 I created the jinn and humankind only that they might worship Me.

Further, the sun is burning up hydrogen. It has only used up about 2% of it's total energy at the moment. All stars (as far as I know) work in the same way as our sun. If the universe had always existed, you'd expect a lot less hydrogen in the universe, yet it's one of, if not the most, abundant elements to be found.

As I've stated, I'm no expert, I just thought it a relevant point to bring up.

And may I take this opportunity, to welcome you to RF.

and here are some events when the words ends (the Hour of Resurrection)

ch.81

[1] When the sun (with its spacious light) is folded up;

[2] When the stars fall, losing their lustre;

[3] When the mountains vanish (like a mirage);

[4] When the she-camels, ten months with young, are left untended;

[5] When the wild beasts are herded together (in human habitations);

[6] When the oceans boil over with a swell;

[7] When the souls are sorted out, (being joined, like with like);

[8] When the female (infant), buried alive, is questioned,

[9] For what crime she was killed;

[10] When the Scrolls are laid open;

[11] When the World on High is unveiled
[12] When the Blazing Fire is kindled to fierce heat;

[13] And when the Garden is brought near;

[14] (Then) shall each soul know what it has put forward.

[15] So verily I call to witness the Planets, that recede,

[16] Go straight, or hide;

[17] And the Night as it dissipates;

[18] And the Dawn as it breathes away the darkness;

[19] Verily this is the word of a most honourable Messenger,

[20] Endued with Power, with rank before the Lord of the Throne,

[21] With authority there, (and) faithful to his trust.

[22] And (O people)! Your Companion is not one possessed;

thank you for reading

so I agree with you according to my beliefs that the sky is keeping expanding

and in one day the sun will lose it's power , so the creation of the heavens will no last for ever.

[55:26] All that is on earth will perish:

[55:27] But will abide (forever) the Face of thy Lord, Full of Majesty, Bounty and Honour.

 

[Yarin]

The problem with saying that this universe that we reside in has existed forever is that the law "everything must have a beginning" is part of it. Thus, the only way for this universe to exist is for it to have been created from a different universe where the law "everything must have a beginning" doesn't apply.

 

[UnTheist]

...Unless we live in that universe where the law "everything must have a beginning" doesn't apply.

 

[Krosswire]

Creationism maintains that the universe is so complex and so orderly that there had to have been an everbeing creator. The theory assumes that the creator, being the creator, had to have always existed.

That being the case, there is no scientific reason why the omniexistence of this creator can not be applied to the universe itself, except by the argument that the creator is composed of completely different reality than the universe. Unfortunately, then in what sense can we say that the creator "exists"? Furthermore, the god in this other reality would have to "exist" in that other reality. Since the universe is claimed by almost all creationists to "exist", then there is still no scientific reason why the universe can not be given the attribute of existing forever in "this" reality.

Granted that there is a creator, and ignoring the above flaws, creationists maintain that it was the Christian God that created the universe, and not Zeus or Shibalba. Given that christianity is a religion, the "theory" of creationism is endorsing a relgion. This is incompatible with the rules of science, which remain silent on religious questions.

It is inconcievable that creationism be regarded as a scientific theory based on the above two flaws.

If you wish to rebuttal this, then you're argument must address ALL of the following:

1)Why god has always existed but that the universe had to be created.

2)Why creationism as a "scientific theory" endorses religion when it is clear that scientific theories as a class are unable to do this.

Failure to address any one of these flaws will render the rebuttal moot, on account that the flaw unadressed maintains the validity of the above. If both flaws are addressed, then they must successful dispatch both flaws according to logical consistency and empirical success.

-Cacafire

Again these are two reasonable questions
1) "god does not exist that is correct to say for if he had or is in existence he was created- HE IS- without the boundaries of time it is said It is he who is no need of eternity
2) no inanimate matter or object can be made animate that is alive by a pprocess of evolution, therefore we animate objects are expression of a reality which makes us alive this reality is somewhat as Yeats say it a Great Memory moving against and through it ownself

 

[Yarin]

How do we know of these laws in the first place? Through observations and true science. If you're going to say that the most basic laws are questionable, then while we're at it we could just as easily question all the laws that you use to prove the idea of evolution in the first place!

 

[UnTheist]

Where does science state that the universe must have a cause?

 

[UnTheist]

Obviously since Yarin is either unable or unwilling to answer my question (I'm confident it's the former), would anybody else care to?

 

[darkendless]

Obviously since Yarin is either unable or unwilling to answer my question (I'm confident it's the former), would anybody else care to?

Sure you're exactly right, theism only states the universe must have a purpose otherwise their whole view of things makes a little less sense.

 

[stacey bo bacey]

I love when people use passages from holy books as "evidence."

 

[x.anti-everything.x]

Thank you methylatedghosts. I was under the impression that nobody ever read those things.

Yes, it could be both. But keep in mind that if the universe always existed, it doesn't matter whether god always existed or not. God would not have created the universe.

Also, to phasmid, the universe is always changing into different forms all the time. To follow your argument, to say that a different form of energy is a different instant of existence would be to say that the universe is being destroyed and created every instant, since all the energy in the universe is doing the same, and matter is simply a different form of energy, yes? But if this was true, then the universe would have to be constantly being destroyed and created for every instant that passes. This is certainly plausible. It's worth looking into, scientifically. But keep in mind that this destruction and creation apparently has been happing for some billions of years, without the help of any god, so there's no reason to say that a god needed to do it at the beginning. furthermore, one could just as easily assume that this constant destruction and creation of the universe is regulated by a physical law, and thus had always been happing, making in effect the same argument as before: The universe would have had no official beginning.

Thoughts?

Here's a thought. Going by Phasmid's theory, If the universe at one point was close together why not the theory that there was only one planet/sun that exploded which therein created 2 or more and so one until the universe had expanded so far beyond our little reach? Makes sense to me anyway.

 

[Arch-Angel]

im sorry but i didn't read through all other posts, im merely answering the first questions posted on the topic.

1)Why god has always existed but that the universe had to be created.

to have a beginning is to be limited, i dont serve the limited god but God Almighty. the eternal (not having a beginning) is a purely supernatural attribute, nothing we have ever encountered in all creation holds to this. you could say that since there is no energy disapating and no new energy made then this would be eternal, but nothing would ever support this claim since you would have the same problem of not being there to witness this.

2)Why creationism as a "scientific theory" endorses religion when it is clear that scientific theories as a class are unable to do this.

why do you expect science to answer all things? i dont care if you say my words are nullified because i refuse to play a game within a small box. science only deals with the created order and not matters of the supernatural. if you wanted to scientifically deduce everything you could suppose that you are nothing more than meat wrapped around bones that decays over time. that is all science will produce, science cannot tell you about the core of your being.

take love for example. can science explain why i love my wife one way, my cat another, my children another, my parents yet another and my siblings and friends in a totally different manner? what chemical in my brain holds the wife love? do you see my point?
conscienceness is another example. what area of the brain functions on the constant thought process that is your mind? you can find the brain but will never locate the mind.

science is great for understanding and mastering our world, but do not presuppose that all things must abide by it.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... science only deals with the created order and not matters of the supernatural.

And there you have it. The reason that creationism is not science, as stated by a creationist.