Creationism/Intelligent Design

heyitsthatguy wrote: OpethGuitarist wrote: My only question here is why? Either side may prove their point, but neither is going to change their minds, regardless of evidence. Do Carry on though. because arguing is fun I'm gonna take an unusual stance here and say monkeys evolved from Adam and Eve, then turned back into people, then got bored with that so were ghosts for a little while, then became people again, a few of them became orangutans though

inpraiseoffolly wrote: laplace wrote: progismylife wrote: I like your circular reasoning by trying to not accept that there can be something outside the rules of time and space. Why do you think God chose to reveal himself to Moses as I AM ? He was, is , and always will be. No beginning , no end. So trying to say something made God, and something must have made that is circular reasoning and does nothing but add chaos to the debate at hand. i feel like I've been singling you out unfairly on these boards from time to time. but honestly, every time you make something approaching an argument for or against any point, it's the death of logic. look at what you've written and see if you can't find an equal or greater example of circular reasoning.   Agreed with Laplace.

I'm glad people can see  circular reasoning!

You haven't been singling me out Laplace. I just occasionally post things without really thinking about what I'm posting. I get absent-minded a lot.

inpraiseoffolly wrote: Who supplied God? We don’t know because we’re not given the privilege to know. Again, that’s the luxury you can’t afford – as a materialist, you must answer where your “divine being,” the matter, came from. God does not answer the question, because the very existence of God implies that someone must have created God, and someone must have created God's creator, and on and on endlessly.  You accomplish just as much by saying that the particles for matter and anti-matter have always been there, a testable hypothesis that science will presumably one day find the answer to. We'll be waiting

    
    

Edited by IVNORD - January 25 2007 at 13:00

inpraiseoffolly wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Why not believe that an entity, call it God or Goddess, created a situation that led to the big band Because there's no good reason to that relies on any evidence whatsoever (other than a work of fiction written around 4000 years ago) I am not talking about a God like there is in the bible. But just as I dismiss any criticism to evolution just being a "theory" as nonsense, it has to be stated that science has absolutely no way to explain what was before the big bang. Science has its limitations. Anything that refers to a time before the big bang does not make any scientific sense. But that does not mean there was nothing before it. It is just a question that science can't answer. It is here that metaphysic will enter. This is not my model of God though; I believe in an evolving God (only I prefer to say "Goddess", but that is a detail). But my believe in Goddess does not mean I reject evolution. My believe in Goddess has nothing whatever to do with the bible (I am of a pagan religion) and does not contradict any scientific theory. On the contrary, it fits in very well with a certain hypothesis (mark my use of words) by biologists James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis, the "Gaia" hypothesis. It is not a theory yet though, but it is also not regarded as absolutely absurd anymore , from which a huge self-organizing system slowly evolved? Isn't an entity that creates so complex a process that we, as part of the current state of it, can start thinking about it, much more powerful and creative than an entity that goes and builds the world as it is today out of nothing? I personally find this idea much more attractive. I am not opposed to creation per se, I am only opposed to creation as it is depicted in the bible. No scientist can explain what was before the big bang or what caused it; this is where all science currently ends, and most likely will end in the future too. As some scientists claim, nothing, not even time, existed before the big bang. As a concept this is very intruiging, but it is not fully understandable for any human brain, including the brains of the scientists. The big bang is a so-called singularity in time-space (as are black holes, by the way). When it comes to matters of science, I highly recommend "Why Aren't Black Holes Black?" by Robert M. Hazen and Maxine Singer. It accurately describes the current frontiers of science, with chapters on all the currently unanswered questions.

BaldFriede wrote: inpraiseoffolly wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Why not believe that an entity, call it God or Goddess, created a situation that led to the big band Because there's no good reason to that relies on any evidence whatsoever (other than a work of fiction written around 4000 years ago) I am not talking about a God like there is in the bible. But just as I dismiss any criticism to evolution just being a "theory" as nonsense, it has to be stated that science has absolutely no way to explain what was before the big bang. Science has its limitations. Anything that refers to a time before the big bang does not make any scientific sense. But that does not mean there was nothing before it. It is just a question that science can't answer.  Yet.  It is here that metaphysic will enter. This is not my model of God though; I believe in an evolving God (only I prefer to say "Goddess", but that is a detail). But my believe in Goddess does not mean I reject evolution. My believe in Goddess has nothing whatever to do with the bible (I am of a pagan religion) and does not contradict any scientific theory. On the contrary, it fits in very well with a certain hypothesis (mark my use of words) by biologists James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis, the "Gaia" hypothesis. It is not a theory yet though, but it is also not regarded as absolutely absurd anymore , from which a huge self-organizing system slowly evolved? Isn't an entity that creates so complex a process that we, as part of the current state of it, can start thinking about it, much more powerful and creative than an entity that goes and builds the world as it is today out of nothing? I personally find this idea much more attractive. I am not opposed to creation per se, I am only opposed to creation as it is depicted in the bible. No scientist can explain what was before the big bang or what caused it; this is where all science currently ends, and most likely will end in the future too. As some scientists claim, nothing, not even time, existed before the big bang. As a concept this is very intruiging, but it is not fully understandable for any human brain, including the brains of the scientists. The big bang is a so-called singularity in time-space (as are black holes, by the way). When it comes to matters of science, I highly recommend "Why Aren't Black Holes Black?" by Robert M. Hazen and Maxine Singer. It accurately describes the current frontiers of science, with chapters on all the currently unanswered questions.

progismylife wrote: inpraiseoffolly wrote: heyitsthatguy wrote: OpethGuitarist wrote: My only question here is why? Either side may prove their point, but neither is going to change their minds, regardless of evidence. Do Carry on though. because arguing is fun I'm gonna take an unusual stance here and say monkeys evolved from Adam and Eve, then turned back into people, then got bored with that so were ghosts for a little while, then became people again, a few of them became orangutans though   There are gaps in the fossil record showing the evolution from Man to Ghost... therefore, by Creationist standards, your theory cannot be true! But if you have enough faith in it, it will be absolutely true and beats all the other theories!

inpraiseoffolly wrote: progismylife wrote: inpraiseoffolly wrote: heyitsthatguy wrote: OpethGuitarist wrote: My only question here is why? Either side may prove their point, but neither is going to change their minds, regardless of evidence. Do Carry on though. because arguing is fun I'm gonna take an unusual stance here and say monkeys evolved from Adam and Eve, then turned back into people, then got bored with that so were ghosts for a little while, then became people again, a few of them became orangutans though   There are gaps in the fossil record showing the evolution from Man to Ghost... therefore, by Creationist standards, your theory cannot be true! But if you have enough faith in it, it will be absolutely true and beats all the other theories!   What do you mean "other theories."  That isn't even a theory.  There is currently one one true theory, and that is evolution.

Theory...hypothesis..ppfhh same thing in my book that is full of inaccuracies I might add.

inpraiseoffolly wrote: BaldFriede wrote: inpraiseoffolly wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Why not believe that an entity, call it God or Goddess, created a situation that led to the big band Because there's no good reason to that relies on any evidence whatsoever (other than a work of fiction written around 4000 years ago) I am not talking about a God like there is in the bible. But just as I dismiss any criticism to evolution just being a "theory" as nonsense, it has to be stated that science has absolutely no way to explain what was before the big bang. Science has its limitations. Anything that refers to a time before the big bang does not make any scientific sense. But that does not mean there was nothing before it. It is just a question that science can't answer.  Yet.  That "Yet" only shows you don't fully understand the concept of the Big Bang. If you fully understood it you would have to acknowledge the fact that science won't EVER be able to explain what was before the Big Bang or why it occured. That is why the Big Bang is a singularity in space/time. Any question like "What was before the Big Bang?" does not make any sense from a scientific point of view. And it does by no means mean there was nothing before the Big Bang. You are absolutely free to assume the existence of anything before the Big Bang. Believe in the Gigantic Whoppleburger who started the Big Bang, if you want to; mo-one can contradict you. This is an area in which science has no say. You may say "Then nothing existed before the Big Bang", but I sincerely doubt this really satisifies you. Human brains can't quite fathom that. Human brains are not fit to accept the concept of a "creatio ad nihilo"; they always have to ask "and what was before?" This is, by the way, the reason why science exists in the first place. All of what I said of course only applies if the Big Bang hypothesis (yes, it is no more than a hypothesis; there are at least 3 more different basic cosmologic models) is true. It is here that metaphysic will enter. This is not my model of God though; I believe in an evolving God (only I prefer to say "Goddess", but that is a detail). But my believe in Goddess does not mean I reject evolution. My believe in Goddess has nothing whatever to do with the bible (I am of a pagan religion) and does not contradict any scientific theory. On the contrary, it fits in very well with a certain hypothesis (mark my use of words) by biologists James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis, the "Gaia" hypothesis. It is not a theory yet though, but it is also not regarded as absolutely absurd anymore , from which a huge self-organizing system slowly evolved? Isn't an entity that creates so complex a process that we, as part of the current state of it, can start thinking about it, much more powerful and creative than an entity that goes and builds the world as it is today out of nothing? I personally find this idea much more attractive. I am not opposed to creation per se, I am only opposed to creation as it is depicted in the bible. No scientist can explain what was before the big bang or what caused it; this is where all science currently ends, and most likely will end in the future too. As some scientists claim, nothing, not even time, existed before the big bang. As a concept this is very intruiging, but it is not fully understandable for any human brain, including the brains of the scientists. The big bang is a so-called singularity in time-space (as are black holes, by the way). When it comes to matters of science, I highly recommend "Why Aren't Black Holes Black?" by Robert M. Hazen and Maxine Singer. It accurately describes the current frontiers of science, with chapters on all the currently unanswered questions.

BaldFriede wrote: inpraiseoffolly wrote: BaldFriede wrote: inpraiseoffolly wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Why not believe that an entity, call it God or Goddess, created a situation that led to the big band Because there's no good reason to that relies on any evidence whatsoever (other than a work of fiction written around 4000 years ago) I am not talking about a God like there is in the bible. But just as I dismiss any criticism to evolution just being a "theory" as nonsense, it has to be stated that science has absolutely no way to explain what was before the big bang. Science has its limitations. Anything that refers to a time before the big bang does not make any scientific sense. But that does not mean there was nothing before it. It is just a question that science can't answer.  Yet.  That "Yet" only shows you don't fully understand the concept of the Big Bang. Or just that I leave open the possibility that scientists will figure out how to recreate a mini big bang, thereby discovering how it happened, which is not unthinkable.  If it happened once, it could happen again.  If you fully understood it you would have to acknowledge the fact that science won't EVER be able to explain what was before the Big Bang or why it occured. That is why the Big Bang is a singularity in space/time. Any question like "What was before the Big Bang?" does not make any sense from a scientific point of view. And it does by no means mean there was nothing before the Big Bang. You are absolutely free to assume the existence of anything before the Big Bang. Believe in the Gigantic Whoppleburger who started the Big Bang, if you want to; mo-one can contradict you. This is an area in which science has no say. You may say "Then nothing existed before the Big Bang", but I sincerely doubt this really satisifies you. Human brains can't quite fathom that. Human brains are not fit to accept the concept of a "creatio ad nihilo"; they always have to ask "and what was before?" Unfortunately the main creationist argument (well, one of the main ones).  This is, by the way, the reason why science exists in the first place. All of what I said of course only applies if the Big Bang hypothesis (yes, it is no more than a hypothesis; there are at least 3 more different basic cosmologic models) is true. It is here that metaphysic will enter. This is not my model of God though; I believe in an evolving God (only I prefer to say "Goddess", but that is a detail). But my believe in Goddess does not mean I reject evolution. My believe in Goddess has nothing whatever to do with the bible (I am of a pagan religion) and does not contradict any scientific theory. On the contrary, it fits in very well with a certain hypothesis (mark my use of words) by biologists James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis, the "Gaia" hypothesis. It is not a theory yet though, but it is also not regarded as absolutely absurd anymore , from which a huge self-organizing system slowly evolved? Isn't an entity that creates so complex a process that we, as part of the current state of it, can start thinking about it, much more powerful and creative than an entity that goes and builds the world as it is today out of nothing? I personally find this idea much more attractive. I am not opposed to creation per se, I am only opposed to creation as it is depicted in the bible. No scientist can explain what was before the big bang or what caused it; this is where all science currently ends, and most likely will end in the future too. As some scientists claim, nothing, not even time, existed before the big bang. As a concept this is very intruiging, but it is not fully understandable for any human brain, including the brains of the scientists. The big bang is a so-called singularity in time-space (as are black holes, by the way). When it comes to matters of science, I highly recommend "Why Aren't Black Holes Black?" by Robert M. Hazen and Maxine Singer. It accurately describes the current frontiers of science, with chapters on all the currently unanswered questions.

How long does a day last for God?

BTW: thanks stonebeard, i was thinking the same.
    

Edited by tuxon - January 25 2007 at 16:00