| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Iain" |
| Date: |
24 Nov 2005 12:57:26 AM |
| Object: |
The problem at the heart of Creationism |
How is a god more likely than a man?
Why do they feel the super-duper one raises less questions? Everything
about man that Creationists feel must need a designer, is even more
true about gods.
~Iain
.
|
|
| User: "Bob Pease" |
|
| Title: Re: The problem at the heart of Creationism |
24 Nov 2005 02:15:13 PM |
|
|
"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132793846.562338.286400@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
How is a god more likely than a man?
Why do they feel the super-duper one raises less questions? Everything
about man that Creationists feel must need a designer, is even more
true about gods.
~Iain
Why is there a problem about every level of "God" needing a creator?
Seems as easy to believe as a lot of other stuff.
RJ P
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: The problem at the heart of Creationism |
25 Nov 2005 04:52:11 AM |
|
|
"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132793846.562338.286400@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
How is a god more likely than a man?
Why do they feel the super-duper one raises less questions? Everything
about man that Creationists feel must need a designer, is even more
true about gods.
There are certain conjectural possibilities.
First of all, we might posit that while the laws of *this* universe do not
permit "specified complexity" to arise through any nonteleological
mechanism, there might have been some other universe (in which a Designer or
Designers evolved) in which this was not the case. This is, from the
standpoint of ID proponents, something of a desperate resort, since in fact
it implies a very indirect "Darwinian" approach to intelligence (cf. Daniel
Dennett's discussion in _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_ of "skyhooks" vs.
"cranes," and on evolved intelligence as an ultimate "crane"). I think
Behe has raised this possibility, though, or something similar.
Or, we might point out (not so pendantically, in light of traditional
Christian theology's description of God as "simple" or unanalyzable into
component parts) that God, or gods, need not possess a blood-clotting
cascade, flagella or cilia, or any other physical "specified complex" or
"irreducibly complex" structure. You may recall from threads involving Mike
Goodrich that he regarded human intelligence as inherently supernatural and
not a product of the specified complexity of the brain. Surely at least
some ID proponents hold that intelligence is ultimately nonphysical, simple
(again, in the sense of not having subcomponents), and logically prior to
intelligence embodied in matter. Of course this raises the question of how
a disembodied intelligence might manipulate matter (and why out own embodied
but presumably nonmaterial intelligences cannot manipulate matter without
using other matter to do so), but that was not the issue you raised.
~Iain
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: The problem at the heart of Creationism |
24 Nov 2005 03:00:01 AM |
|
|
(Jason) wrote in
news:jason-2311051726100001@pm1-broad-117.snlo.dialup.fix.net:
In article <1132793846.562338.286400@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote:
How is a god more likely than a man?
Why do they feel the super-duper one raises less questions?
Everything about man that Creationists feel must need a designer, is
even more true about gods.
~Iain
Hello,
It's impossible for anyone on this earth to know how God came to be.
Wrong. A lot of us know that gods (yours included) came from the
imagination of mankind.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Pease" |
|
| Title: Re: The problem at the heart of Creationism |
24 Nov 2005 02:23:56 PM |
|
|
"Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9717E067BBA30wodencharternet@69.28.186.121...
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
news:jason-2311051726100001@pm1-broad-117.snlo.dialup.fix.net:
In article <1132793846.562338.286400@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote:
How is a god more likely than a man?
Why do they feel the super-duper one raises less questions?
Everything about man that Creationists feel must need a designer, is
even more true about gods.
~Iain
Hello,
It's impossible for anyone on this earth to know how God came to be.
Wrong. A lot of us know that gods (yours included) came from the
imagination of mankind.
Playing Devil's advocate...
***
Satan is Happy every time you actually believe an idea that HE has put into
your mind!!!
***
Actually, It does no good to give a
"BZZZT!!...WRONG!!"
reply to a person for whom it is axiomatic that disbelief is EEEEVil.
Best reply is
"Hmmmm,,, How about them Broncos this year!"
RJ P
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The problem at the heart of Creationism |
24 Nov 2005 05:14:35 PM |
|
|
Satan is Happy every time you actually believe an idea that HE has
put into your mind!!!
It's obvious you're psychotic. Not only do you believe in a fictious
being, but you capitalized *both* the letters in his name whereas you
capitalize only the first letter in the other name/title, so obviously
you worship your make-believe Satan more than the other.
But I understand why you do it. It's an escape mechanism. You are so
ashamed of what you've done that you couldn't go on living if you
believed you were actually responsible for what you did, so you need
somebody else to blame it on, so you've latched onto the Satan myth as
an escape from your own guilt.
I know a good therapist I could recommend if you're willing to try.
And don't try to deny that you're psychotic. Part of your escape
mechanism is to deny your psychosis.
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The problem at the heart of Creationism |
24 Nov 2005 07:22:10 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Satan is Happy every time you actually believe an idea that HE has
put into your mind!!!
It's obvious you're psychotic. Not only do you believe in a fictious
being, but you capitalized *both* the letters in his name whereas you
capitalize only the first letter in the other name/title, so obviously
you worship your make-believe Satan more than the other.
But I understand why you do it. It's an escape mechanism. You are so
ashamed of what you've done that you couldn't go on living if you
believed you were actually responsible for what you did, so you need
somebody else to blame it on, so you've latched onto the Satan myth as
an escape from your own guilt.
I know a good therapist I could recommend if you're willing to try.
And don't try to deny that you're psychotic. Part of your escape
mechanism is to deny your psychosis.
.
Interesting. Two unattributed snips, both clarifying that Bob doesn't
mean that quote:
"Playing Devil's advocate... "
and...
"Actually, It does no good to give a
"BZZZT!!...WRONG!!"
reply to a person for whom it is axiomatic that disbelief is EEEEVil.
Best reply is
"Hmmmm,,, How about them Broncos this year!"
Methinks you are too ready for a fight. It might help if you confront
your actual ideological opponents, rather than your allies.
Kermit,
who has never done this himself. Nope; never.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The problem at the heart of Creationism |
24 Nov 2005 05:07:24 PM |
|
|
A lot of us know that gods (yours included) came from the imagination
of mankind.
Yes. Thanks to the scientific studies of psychology and sociology, we
now have some idea why and how people construct mental fictions such as
supernatural beings. But as to any actual gods outside our mental
fictions and writings thereof, we have no idea how to construct one,
nor any clear evidence any such exist.
..
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The problem at the heart of Creationism |
24 Nov 2005 05:01:08 PM |
|
|
How is a god more likely than a man?
Why do they feel the super-duper one raises less questions?
Everything about man that Creationists feel must need a designer, is
even more true about gods.
It's even worse than that: In the case of a man, we already know a
simple way to make one, starting from only a tiny bit of two parents:
Have sexual intercourse, whereby sperm meets egg, provide uterus where
placenta can attach and obtain nutrition, give birth, provide breast
milk or formula, then provide regular food, and after about twenty
years you have a man (half the time, a woman the other half the time).
We don't know any way whatsoever to make a god (except a fantasy god in
our minds), not even if we have a hundred previous gods available to
scavange for parts.
It's not enough to just design a god, or a man. You need to somehow
actually fabricate one. Sometime in another hundred years or so we will
probably be able to create a man from scratch, just like we create a
polio virus from scratch already. But creating a god seems impossible.
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: The problem at the heart of Creationism |
24 Nov 2005 07:44:00 PM |
|
|
said:
<...>
But creating a god seems impossible.
In "small Gods" Terry Pratchett wrote about gods that would cease to
exist if not believed in. A logical inference might be that they came
to exist, by being believed in.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: The problem at the heart of Creationism |
24 Nov 2005 10:02:03 PM |
|
|
Jim07D5 wrote:
anon1@sci.sci said:
<...>
But creating a god seems impossible.
In "small Gods" Terry Pratchett wrote about gods that would cease to
exist if not believed in. A logical inference might be that they came
to exist, by being believed in.
--- Jim07D5
Only, on Discworld, anything that is believed in so strongly is caused by the
universal element Narrativium, to immediately exist. Down here on Roundworld,
all you have are the beliefs...
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Nihil tam absurdum quod non quidam Philosophi dixerit - Cicero
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The problem at the heart of Creationism |
24 Nov 2005 07:32:02 PM |
|
|
wrote:
How is a god more likely than a man?
Why do they feel the super-duper one raises less questions?
Everything about man that Creationists feel must need a designer, is
even more true about gods.
It's even worse than that: In the case of a man, we already know a
simple way to make one, starting from only a tiny bit of two parents:
Have sexual intercourse, whereby sperm meets egg, provide uterus where
placenta can attach and obtain nutrition, give birth, provide breast
milk or formula, then provide regular food, and after about twenty
years you have a man (half the time, a woman the other half the time).
We don't know any way whatsoever to make a god (except a fantasy god in
our minds), not even if we have a hundred previous gods available to
scavange for parts.
It's not enough to just design a god, or a man. You need to somehow
actually fabricate one. Sometime in another hundred years or so we will
probably be able to create a man from scratch, just like we create a
polio virus from scratch already.
Yup. Maybe improve on the ...design, while we're at it.
But creating a god seems impossible.
.
Naw. You just have to set the bar a little lower, is all.
Kermit
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The problem at the heart of Creationism |
25 Nov 2005 10:03:13 PM |
|
|
Just because we don't have a clue how to do it now doesn't mean we
won't in the future...i mean we didn't always know how fire
worked...and I am willing to bet cavemen didn't ever expect to know...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rita" |
|
| Title: Re: The problem at the heart of Creationism |
24 Nov 2005 03:50:02 AM |
|
|
I really don't agree with you on this point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Pease" |
|
| Title: Re: The problem at the heart of Creationism |
24 Nov 2005 02:28:44 PM |
|
|
"Rita" <ritabens@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132804201.995697.66270@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I really don't agree with you on this point.
You don't agree with whom on what point??
Why not??
Please consider that everyone is not onlind and following a thread at the
moment you post.
Please quote relevant sections and include enough headers for a reader to
reference the original if needed.
Thanx
RJ P
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BruceW" |
|
| Title: Re: The problem at the heart of Creationism |
24 Nov 2005 11:10:04 PM |
|
|
Rita wrote:
I really don't agree with you on this point.
Hard to tell what you're not agreeing with when you don't quote at
least a part of the post you're replying to.
If Google doesn't quote the post when you click "reply", please
try instead clicking "show options", and then the "reply" option.
Going this route usually lets you include portions of the message
you are replying to, and makes it much easier for readers to
understand your comments.
-BruceW
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The problem at the heart of Creationism |
25 Nov 2005 02:12:04 AM |
|
|
Thanks for being so polite guys, it's much appreciated.
"Everything
about man that Creationists feel must need a designer, is even more
true about gods. "
A God by definition is omniscient, right? So, there are fewer questions
about how one was designed, in that sense.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rolf" |
|
| Title: SV: The problem at the heart of Creationism |
24 Nov 2005 04:33:11 PM |
|
|
Iain <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> skrev i
meldingsnyheter:1132793846.562338.286400@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
How is a god more likely than a man?
Why do they feel the super-duper one raises less questions? Everything
about man that Creationists feel must need a designer, is even more
true about gods.
Just as there are turtles all the way down, there are gods all the way up.
Rolf
~Iain
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The problem at the heart of Creationism |
24 Nov 2005 05:37:06 PM |
|
|
Iain wrote:
How is a god more likely than a man?
Why do they feel the super-duper one raises less questions? Everything
about man that Creationists feel must need a designer, is even more
true about gods.
~Iain
Perhaps I should answer this; I was raised by Southern Baptists and
everyone on that side of my family are young Earth creationists.
They didn't reason their way to that position at all - you should
disabuse yourself of that notion straightaway. There are several
motives; the emotional ones are simply not amenable to reasoning or
evidence. For them, and to a degree all of us, reality is a social
construct. If we have fallen into the habit of comparing our
scienctific beliefs to reality (evidence) we may still not necessarily
do it so ruthlessly with our political or other beliefs.
1. They have been told all their lives if the bible is not literal
truth, it's not truth; if it's open to interpretation, it could mean
anything, and therefore it means nothing reliably. If the bible isn't
true, then they are. going. to. die. And all of their dead relatives
will not be waiting for them on the other shore. Psychologically, your
perfectly calm and reasonable arguments are threatening them and their
family with death.
2. They have been told all their lives that *they are the reason for
everything. Your telling them that they are simply another animal
removes them from the center of God's attention to being just another
critter - maybe just another on one of billions of planets teeming with
life. This may be especially important for those raised with low
self-esteem - which is a fair number of them. (I was told growing up
when I ever accomplished anything that I should thank God for the
talents he gave me, but if I screwed up, it was *my *fault. And then
the godless scientists come along and tell me I don't have even the
mansion in the sky?)
3. Familiarity and certainty. Ever read Alvin Toffler's _Future Shock_?
We are all swamped with change, and some folks cope less well than
others. Some folks also need certainty in their lives; they want
explanations for everything, and explanations don't work if they don't
understand it. They could never be scientists, because if they don't
have an answer right away, they'll find one that kinda works and never
look at it too closely.
If you reason with these people you are telling them:
1. Here comes more change! Fasten your seat belt! Woo-hoo!
2. You're not so hot.
3. You. are. going. to. die.
There may be other emotional reasons, but these are the ones I saw
watching these folks up close.
There is another group - the young ones, or folks who otherwise simply
haven't been exposed to these ideas before. Some of them are
convertable to a rational stance. You can usually tell who they are by
how they respond to a reasoned response to their first post. Please go
easy on newcomers folks; some of them are salvageable.
But pseudoDawkins, NashTon, etc. have already decided that playing thru
their emotional programming is more important than understanding.
They're hopeless. I respond to them for the lurkers. If I were 40 years
younger, I would be one of those lurkers.
Kermit
.
|
|
|
| User: "Murf" |
|
| Title: Re: The problem at the heart of Creationism |
25 Nov 2005 11:19:54 AM |
|
|
<Kermit big post>
Very well put Mr Kermit
Your take on being raised by Southern Baptists and
everyone on that side of your family being YEC is a good example of
looking to to explain what they believe whilst not ridiculing them in a
cruel way
A series of points well made.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BruceW" |
|
| Title: Re: The problem at the heart of Creationism |
24 Nov 2005 11:17:24 PM |
|
|
wrote:
...
If you reason with these people you are telling them:
1. Here comes more change! Fasten your seat belt! Woo-hoo!
2. You're not so hot.
3. You. are. going. to. die.
...
Is there any way to "reach" such people? To communicate with
them without (unduly) upsetting their world view?
-BruceW
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: The problem at the heart of Creationism |
25 Nov 2005 11:14:41 AM |
|
|
Iain wrote:
How is a god more likely than a man?
Why do they feel the super-duper one raises less questions? Everything
about man that Creationists feel must need a designer, is even more
true about gods.
~Iain
That isn't the problem at the heart of creationism.
If someone wants to believe that the world is supported on the backs of
four elephants standing on a giant turtle, that's finr.
If they want to believe that an all-powerful God created the world six
thousand years ago, that's fine.
If they want to believe that man was spewed out of the mouth of a giant
fish, that's fine.
If they want to believe that mankind was created by Chronos, that's
fine.
Those are matters of faith. They do not rely on evidence to support the
belief.
It isn't fine when they claim that those beliefs are
1) scientific and
2) supported by evidence
To present the argument that they are is impossible without distortion,
misrepresentation and outright falsehood, which is fundamentally
incompatible with the basic beliefs of Christianity - a relgion to
which many creationists claim sole ownership.
I have read creationist books and pamphlets for thirty years, and their
web sites for the past few. I have yet to come across any creationist
source which does not rely on outright falsehoods to present their
argument. Note that I am not talking about different interpretations of
the same evidence, but matters presented as true which are demonstrably
incorrect.
Of course, if any of our resident creationists can point out any
creationist source which is scrupulously honest in its presentation of
the evidence, and builds its arguments logically from that evidence
feel free to prove me wrong.
I'm very, very confident that this won't happen.
RF
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: The problem at the heart of Creationism |
26 Nov 2005 09:43:24 PM |
|
|
"Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com> wrote in message
news:1132917281.079045.124160@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Iain wrote:
How is a god more likely than a man?
Why do they feel the super-duper one raises less questions? Everything
about man that Creationists feel must need a designer, is even more
true about gods.
~Iain
That isn't the problem at the heart of creationism.
If someone wants to believe that the world is supported on the backs of
four elephants standing on a giant turtle, that's finr.
But what's the giant turtle standing, ....
Oh, never mind.
Deadrat
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: The problem at the heart of Creationism |
26 Nov 2005 11:55:13 PM |
|
|
In article <0G4if.1579$Ba6.924@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>,
"Deadrat" <ephemera1@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com> wrote in message
news:1132917281.079045.124160@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Iain wrote:
How is a god more likely than a man?
Why do they feel the super-duper one raises less questions? Everything
about man that Creationists feel must need a designer, is even more
true about gods.
~Iain
That isn't the problem at the heart of creationism.
If someone wants to believe that the world is supported on the backs of
four elephants standing on a giant turtle, that's finr.
But what's the giant turtle standing, ....
Oh, never mind.
Deadrat
<snip>
Haven't you heard, its turtles all the way down!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Puppet_Sock" |
|
| Title: Re: The problem at the heart of Creationism |
25 Nov 2005 09:56:29 PM |
|
|
Iain wrote:
How is a god more likely than a man?
Why do they feel the super-duper one raises less questions? Everything
about man that Creationists feel must need a designer, is even more
true about gods.
You may find it interesting that you are not the first to ask
this question, not by several centuries. "First cause" type
arguments have been bashed around this way, and by
many people, for hundreds of years. Though, normally the
typical person "in the trenches" won't be aware of it.
The generic buzz phrase for the thing you are polishing here is
"primacy of consciousness" vs "primacy of existence."
A person who is theistic, that is accepts some sort of
deity, accepts primacy of consciousness. A deity does
not need a start, since a deity is eternal, outside of time.
A deity has no start nor end, does not change, is not
aging in the sense that mortal critters are. For a theistic
type, the question "who started God?" is like the question
"how did the fact '1 plus 1 is 2 in ordinary arithmetic' get
to Boston?"
To a theistic person, a deity is not just some big sky person.
As Bill Murray said in the movie "Groundhog Day":
"I'm *a* god, not *the* God." So, an entity such as Zeus
from the Greek Pantheon would ba *a* god, not *the* God.
Primacy of existence is a different kettle of fish. A person
who accepts this holds that nothing exists outside of
time. And thus, a first cause argument seems to be
just so much nonsense. It does not get you anywhere,
because it does not explain anything.
Within science, primacy of existence is explicitly set
as a boundary and foundation. The observations are
fundamental, and they take place in, and are subject
to, all the stuff that goes with time and reality. As soon
as you bring something along that is eternal, that is
outside time, you've stepped outside of science.
This is generically a big source of the evergreen nature
of the argument between theists and scientists. Their
observations and reasoning don't touch the other side.
Socks
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The problem at the heart of Creationism |
27 Nov 2005 01:01:40 PM |
|
|
Puppet_Sock wrote:
Iain wrote:
How is a god more likely than a man?
Why do they feel the super-duper one raises less questions? Everything
about man that Creationists feel must need a designer, is even more
true about gods.
[ snip -- jm ]
The generic buzz phrase for the thing you are polishing here is
"primacy of consciousness" vs "primacy of existence."
A person who is theistic, that is accepts some sort of
deity, accepts primacy of consciousness. A deity does
not need a start, since a deity is eternal, outside of time.
A deity has no start nor end, does not change, is not
aging in the sense that mortal critters are. For a theistic
type, the question "who started God?" is like the question
"how did the fact '1 plus 1 is 2 in ordinary arithmetic' get
to Boston?"
Could you please go into a little more detail on the "primacy of
consciousness" argument? As stated here, it doesn't address the issue
at all. The fact is that some creationists are claiming that man (or
the universe) requires a creator, but further claim that the creator
does not need a creator. This is an example of the logical fallacy of
special pleading. I don't see, from your description, how the "primacy
of consciousness" argument eliminates this flaw.
Jack
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomS" |
|
| Title: Re: The problem at the heart of Creationism |
27 Nov 2005 01:39:08 PM |
|
|
"On 27 Nov 2005 05:01:40 -0800, in article
<1133096500.651747.193690@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
stated..."
Puppet_Sock wrote:
Iain wrote:
How is a god more likely than a man?
Why do they feel the super-duper one raises less questions? Everything
about man that Creationists feel must need a designer, is even more
true about gods.
[ snip -- jm ]
The generic buzz phrase for the thing you are polishing here is
"primacy of consciousness" vs "primacy of existence."
A person who is theistic, that is accepts some sort of
deity, accepts primacy of consciousness. A deity does
not need a start, since a deity is eternal, outside of time.
A deity has no start nor end, does not change, is not
aging in the sense that mortal critters are. For a theistic
type, the question "who started God?" is like the question
"how did the fact '1 plus 1 is 2 in ordinary arithmetic' get
to Boston?"
Could you please go into a little more detail on the "primacy of
consciousness" argument? As stated here, it doesn't address the issue
at all. The fact is that some creationists are claiming that man (or
the universe) requires a creator, but further claim that the creator
does not need a creator. This is an example of the logical fallacy of
special pleading. I don't see, from your description, how the "primacy
of consciousness" argument eliminates this flaw.
May I suggest a little bit different take on this.
The original question, the question about creationism vs.
evolution, is how to explain something about the world of life.
While this particular argument might establish that one can be
consistent in one's belief in God - it completely avoids the
question of how to explain something. God, according to this
exposition, is not an explanation for anything. It removes God
from the ordinary sequence of cause-and-effect.
If we cannot understand the ways of God, then we cannot
claim that the ways of God offer an explanation.
If you want to invoke God as an explanation, then you have
to tell us something about the how or why of God's actions.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tervicz" |
|
| Title: Re: The problem at the heart of Creationism |
25 Nov 2005 03:02:37 AM |
|
|
The problem at heart to me is that it is imposible to make something
from nothing. If you wish to create a house you need bricks. For bricks
you need clay. For clay you need an erosion process. And for an erosion
process you need a planet with an atmosphere... etc... If for instance
this planet wouldn't have an atmosphere for whatever reason there would
be no houses build with bricks and we would not be here discussing this
topic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iain" |
|
| Title: Re: The problem at the heart of Creationism |
25 Nov 2005 09:53:22 AM |
|
|
Tervicz wrote:
The problem at heart to me is that it is imposible to make something
from nothing. If you wish to create a house you need bricks. For bricks
you need clay. For clay you need an erosion process. And for an erosion
process you need a planet with an atmosphere... etc... If for instance
this planet wouldn't have an atmosphere for whatever reason there would
be no houses build with bricks and we would not be here discussing this
topic.
So...how is it easier for a god to come from nothing, and not a man?
~Iain
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tervicz" |
|
| Title: Re: The problem at the heart of Creationism |
25 Nov 2005 03:56:01 PM |
|
|
Actually I haven't seen any evidence for the existence of "gods" so as
far as I'm concerned he didn't come at all.
Man is a product of a process called evolution. And evolution is a
product of life, self-replicating molecules. Those molecules are the
product of chemestry, smaller more simple molecules such as Methane,
amoniac and carbon molecules. Those molecules are the product of
binding atoms and some those atoms are the product of nuclear fusion
during super novas and the others (Hydrogen and helium) formed right
after the big bang. And where did the big bang come from? From nothing.
But then again the universe and all that it holds weren't created. They
formed spontaniously. And as a matter of fact the universe is still in
a process of forming. There are still super novas in which carbon,
oxygen... are formed. New stars and planets are born as we speak. It's
a constant process. And so is the evolution of organisms.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Bush AWOL, Cheney AWOL, DeLay AWOL, Clark Purple Heart (Al Gore smoked dope, Bush served, Wesley Clark murdered women & children at Waco)
Re: IM ASKING FOR DONATIONS FOR HEART SURGERY
Re: Love thy loveless neighbor: Pray that GOD heal his heart.
Company Ties Gene to Risk of Heart Attack and Stroke
Love thy name-calling neighbor: Pray that GOD heal her heart.
Half my heart is in Iraq
Love thy name-calling neighbor: Pray that GOD heal his heart.
In the News: Religious right fights science for the heart of America
| Re: Love thy wounded neighbor: Pray that GOD heal her heart.
The Disgusting Man Says In His Heart: There Is No God
Re: What's in Your Heart?
Pentagon Calling Up Reservists Who Have Had Heart Attacks, cancer, hernias, in kidney dialysis, etc.
Healthy Heart: The miracle of living right with GOD.
OT: Secrets and lies at the heart of Britain's Middle Eastern folly
Re: JESUS DIED OF FEAR, PANIC, ANXIETY, HEART ATTACK - FORENSIC EXPERT
|
|
|
