|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The problem with creationism and god | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
By what authority this figure of "~90% correct" for "Evolution" is derived and how, nobody has begun to state. Satire does not require numerical precision.
Moreover, if in fact God did create the universe, "Creation" would be 100% correct. There is no degree of correctness. Either we have a Creator or we do not. True. We don't. I'm glad I could clear that up for you.
But by far the biggest mistake of Darwinists is the pretense that *something* has to be The Theory. If Darwinism goes out the door, *something* has to take its place immediately. This is nonsense, but it is incessantly prattled by those who deem themselves *scientists.* Incessantly, eh? Then perhaps you could quote one of them? Only it sounds to me like what you're actually describing is the Great Big False Dichotomy of creationists, whereby arguments against evolution are taken to be arguments for creationism. The converse is not the case. You never hear a real scientist explaining that since snakes can't talk Darwin must have been right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Then show the evolutionary diagram from our nearest invertebrate ancestor to Homo sapiens, and label each and every branch by genus and species. Show me your family tree from Adam, labeling each individual by name ... No? Ah well then, your fiction of having so-called "ancestors" is exploded. Obviously you were poofed out of thin air by magic. Creationists are funny.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You may CLAIM that evolution "does work" until Darwin comes home. That does not make it so. The facts, however, do.
It "works" because millions of people have their lives and reputations heavily invested in it, and they continue to promote it at the tops of their lungs. Ah, paranoia. But how do you suppose that this state of affairs came to be in the first place? Why did scientists not invest their reputations in creationism? Would a mathematician rather invest his reputation in the proposition that 2 + 2 = 4, or in the proposition that 2 + 2 = 5? So what would biologists rather invest their reputations in: biological facts, or biological fictions? If you will not credit them with any integrity, then even so mere prudence would incline them to the truth: which is why they support evolution and mock creationism as worthless nonsense.
Nobody says "Gravity is as firm a theory as evolution." And millions of credulous halfwits are not denying gravity. Do you think there could be a connection between these two observations? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The Great Big False Dichotomy truly is: "Unless you can propose an alternative, then it's evolution, all the way down." Like most of your friends here, you don't want to consider anything contrary to your own dogma. You merely trivialize anything of that nature, and with it, the intellect and acumen of all who are not like you - *scientific and wise.* Such an attitude as yours is most unscientific. You are lying to me about my own opinions. Do you really have any expectation of deceiving me? I note, by the way, that you have declined my invitation to quote one single scientist actually saying the "nonsense" that you claim that they "incessantly prattle". Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Gravity is a s firm a theory as evolution. Not 'til you can show me a graviton.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Darwinists are nauseatingly arrogant and condescending. I note that that statement is not itself an exemplar of diffident humility.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
What a lovely and *diverse* group of people frequent this pond. Who wouldn't want to enter, and either regurgitate the same things you always repeat endlessly, or else be ridiculed ad nauseum, notwithstanding the "Rules" and their intentions. Eventually the person holding a gun to your head and forcing you to participate on these forums will have to sleep. At that point you can make a run for it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The premise is that for something to be designed it would need to be designed by a more complex being and that that being would need to be designed by a more complex being and so on in a never ending succession and thus proving that God could not exist. This premise is based on the assumption that nothing can exist that cannot be observed with our senses. I don't see where the argument is based on that assumption. On the contrary, it's intended as a reductio ad absurdum of creationist thought. If I require a designer, how much more does a splendiferous entity like God need a designer? For the sake of argument it assumes the supernatural and explores the consequences of that assumption.
So, bottom line is that I don’t believe science can address the issue of whether God exists or not. OK. But the point is that creationist think that they have a quasi-scientific argument which does address this issue. They hold it to be true that complex things need yet more complex causes. The problem they have is that this implies not just a god, but a meta-god, a meta-meta-god, and so on ad infinitum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Would it not assume that God is under the same physical laws that we in the material world are? But that's the problem, or one of the problems. The creationists make up some rules for how the world works. Then they deduce God. Then they don't stick with the rules that they made up and go on to deduce a meta-God.
I certainly can't speak for all creationists and IDers, this is just my personal take on this issue. I don't think that just because, say a living cell, needs to be designed (and for the purpose of this thread I am not arguing that it does), it would not necessarily imply that the designer need to be designed. So would something actually be "supernatural" if it required a designer? The assumption is that this "supernatural" being is merely a physical being that is more "complex" than anything we are currently aware of, and if that is the case, then yes there would be a problem with needing a meta-meta-god and so on ad infinitum. I am simply suggesting that this would not be the case if God exsists outside of our material world. "With one bound, Jack was free!" Y'see, this is the problem. Creationist make up a rule so that they can invoke the existence of God. Try applying that rule to God, and somehow it doesn't apply to him. Because ... er ... well it just doesn't. 'Cos he's immaterial ... so ... so ... er ... well, so! But when they invoke God, they've already gotten into a discussion of a non-material entity. If the rule they made up doesn't apply to such things, then their argument collapses. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I am not arguing for or against creationism, only that God wouldn't necessarily need to be created by a "more complex" being. Well, sure. I agree with you. But this particular creationist argument implies that he would need to be created by a more complex being. That's the problem with it. The OP isn't an argument against God nor an argument for a meta-God. It's just pointing out that one particular argument for God is incoherent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Thank you for teaching me that oxygen was deadly as one point. But at some point, when oxygen became safe, the need and ability to obsorb would have to become existent at the same exact moment. No. Common experience tells us that the ability to use something and the absolute necessity of doing so do not go hand in hand. And we can watch examples of this in evolution. Consider the evolution of bacteria in response to the antibiotic vancomycin. We see: (1) The wild type, which can survive very low doses of vancomycin but is killed by higher-doses.(2) Vancomycin-resistant bacteria, which can survive high doses. (3) Vancomycin-using bacteria, which exploit vancomycin as a food source. (4) Vancomycin-dependent bacteria, which are so nicely metabolically adjusted to the presence of vancomycin that they'd die without it just as you'd die without oxygen. There's no earthly reason why stages (2), (3) and (4) should happen simultaneously, and in fact they don't.
I suggest trying to pick apart the message, not the words. Neither side gets anywhere in promoting their beleifs if we spend so much time picking off the 20 layers of the word "complex" and saying gotcha! In order for the message to be meaningful, so do the words of which it is composed. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024