Creationism vs. Evolution

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

It seems like cursing at the Lord has become part of our society, disgraceful as it is.

 

 

I often curse at that guy for I despise him, but I still don't care what religion people have. When people get to spread lies and myths in what's supposed to be science class it's where you have to draw a line.

 

But then again, we hardly have that problem where I live.

Put simply, you can't please anybody. There are people that will hate you for simply eating meat, the colour of your shoes or (this is a bit of a 21st century Godwins Law), the WBC for you doing just about anything.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The vernacular is full of these little cursings.  It is, perhaps, a backlash.  As far as a 'him' is concerned, one can't be much of an unbeliever if one anthropomorhphizes this fiction.

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

Why would you despise something you believe isn't real anyways? Just curious.

Real or not, this thing we don't believe exists has still influence the human sphere of influence, and not necessarily in a good way.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Real or not, this thing we don't believe exists has still influence the human sphere of influence, and not necessarily in a good way.

 

Good point. Still, it seems a bit....silly, to despise something you believe does not exist yet holding this non existing thing personally responsible for all the bad things people do in its name. 

 

Just saying it seems more logical to despise the church, or even better, despise the people that do those terrible things.

[Bdub01 201]

^ Ahhhh good point! I don't despise "god" for I don't believe in god, at least not in the Judeo-Christian way. So it would be silly for me to despise "the lord" as much as it would for me to despise Odin, Zeus, and Ashtar...

[Meg 368]

Hate leads to the dark side, no matter who or what you are hating.

[LexusInfernus 908]

The dark side is best!  Also, I can't help it, I just really really don't like Nazis and Spaghetti.

 

Though in all seriousness, there are always things that manage to piss you off so bad that hate becomes the natural reaction against it. And it doesn't have to be a bad thing. It just becomes bad when you begin to act on that hate and do things you might regret afterwards. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I have always held that hate is a waste of time.  For every minute of hate one indulges oneself in, one gives up sixty seconds of joy.

 

It is the same with worry.  If one is worried by something, one can either take action or not.  Taking action removes the worry.  If action cannot be taken because none is available, then there is no point in worrying.

 

And, of course, violence is the last resort of the incompetent.

 

-- From the Tao of A Nonny Moose.

[MandelSoft 2,769]

I do hate some things, but religion ain't one of those things; it's usually about the hate from people towards things itself, the intolerance, not accepting how other people are...

For other things I use lighter words, like being not too fond of something or just don't like it. For other things, relativizing helps a lot to bring joy back again in life. Yes, I don't like SimCity 2013, but you can be pissed by it or make fun of it, and you see the latter option will bring you more joy

[Mr Saturn64 742]

An atheist blaspheming is the greatest hypocracy

[astronelson 339]

An atheist blaspheming is the greatest hypocracy

No greater than saying it's Thursday if you don't believe in Thor.

[Bipin 3,402]

 

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”

 

- Neil deGrasseTyson

 

 

I'll just leave it at that, for it so aptly portrays the foreseeable and ultimate outcome of creationism versus evolution.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

A man must believe in something.  I believe I'll have a diet coke.

[Duke87 1,070]

 

An atheist blaspheming is the greatest hypocracy

No greater than saying it's Thursday if you don't believe in Thor.

 

 

And besides, saying "for the love of physics" just doesn't have the same kick.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

You don't need to invoke mythology to swear.  Try basterflatt'nfrigganitt'npackalumer.  Very satisfying, and completely meaningless.  There are other epithets around too.  How about "By the great horn spoon"?

[LexusInfernus 908]

Yeah but invoking mythology is so much more fun. I mean, if you're using non existing words, its no different than Ned Flanders from the Simpsons saying diddlydoo. It just lacks power, which is kind of what you want to have when you are swearing. If the swear lacks power, it is not satisfying, and if it is not satisfying, it doesn't vent frustration or aggression as well as it would if it was satisfying. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

What you are saying is that one transgresses the social norm for shock value.  Not a bad debating technique but do such things belong in civilized conversation?

[LexusInfernus 908]

What you are saying is that one transgresses the social norm for shock value.  Not a bad debating technique but do such things belong in civilized conversation?

By now saying something like 'goddamnit' is hardly considered breaking a social norm anymore. And I suppose it depends on the actual contents of the conversation. 

[lhrob 213]

Question:  How did the universe come into existence?

[astronelson 339]

Question:  How did the universe come into existence?

 

Well, the Big Bang happened.

 

Before that? Anything that happened before the Big Bang could not affect what happened after it - singularities are interesting like that. We cannot observe before that moment in time. Science cannot say what, if anything, preceded the Big Bang. That is purely the realm of the philosopher.

 

Of course, "before" the Big Bang isn't actually a sensible concept, since both time and space didn't exist before it, but it's a phrase I have to use in order to make any sense whatsoever.

[lhrob 213]

 

Question:  How did the universe come into existence?

 

Well, the Big Bang happened.

 

Before that? Anything that happened before the Big Bang could not affect what happened after it - singularities are interesting like that. We cannot observe before that moment in time. Science cannot say what, if anything, preceded the Big Bang. That is purely the realm of the philosopher.

 

Of course, "before" the Big Bang isn't actually a sensible concept, since both time and space didn't exist before it, but it's a phrase I have to use in order to make any sense whatsoever.

 

 

If scientists can't say what preceded the Big Bang, why are some so quick to dismiss God as having been the cause of it?

 

I've read that scientists now believe the laws of physics could have allowed the universe to come into existence on its own, without any cause.  But then, where did the laws of physics come from which allowed that to happen?

 

See, to me it doesn't matter what scientists say about creationism versus evolution.  The ultimate reality is that God created it.  Nothing will, or could, ever dissuade me from what I believe about that....not even the "brightest and most brilliant scientific mind" in the world.

 

Anyway, I just wanted to express my opinion.  But I know it's an unwelcome one, so carry on with your discussion.

[Meg 368]

How did God come into existence?

[hym 358]

If you follow the philosophical definition of "god," then God could have simply willed himself/herself/itself into existence.

[lhrob 213]

How did God come into existence?

 

He has always existed.  The same can't be said of the universe.

Do you believe in God, Meg?

[Bipin 3,402]

But then, where did the laws of physics come from which allowed that to happen?

 

 

Laws aren't matter or physical entities; they are they results of cognitive processes. They aren't material objects, and thus aren't formed in a sense concerning matter. Thus, you can't apply the same rules as you do to matter, to them. For simplicity sake, scientific laws have always been around, it's just that humans discovered (not created) them sooner or later.

[lhrob 213]

 

But then, where did the laws of physics come from which allowed that to happen?

 

 

Laws aren't matter or physical entities; they are they results of cognitive processes. They aren't material objects, and thus aren't formed in a sense concerning matter. Thus, you can't apply the same rules as you do to matter, to them. For simplicity sake, scientific laws have always been around, it's just that humans discovered (not created) them sooner or later.

 

 

I understand that.  But you're not following what I'm saying.  Scientists are asserting that the universe could have come into existence all on it's own, without any particular cause.  In other words, they believe the physical universe as we know it simply "exploded" into existence, and they claim the laws of physics could have allowed that to happen.  But if the laws of physics could have allowed that to happen, that implies the laws of physics had to have existed before the Big Bang.  If not, how could the laws of physics allow something to happen when those very laws didn't even exist?   So the question becomes: where did the laws of physics come from?  What/who created those laws?  It doesn't matter if those laws are physical entities or not.  The very fact that they could allow something to happen implies a sense of order...a governing force which allows a reaction to occur in response to a specific action.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, you see, this is all due to man's limitations.  We can never know the mind of "God", and that is well understood.  We don't even know if the creator or "God" has any kind of mind that could ever be comprehended by man, because man is probably not the object of creation, Bible notwithstanding.

 

When it comes right down to it, the scientific community is slowly coming back to the idea of the steady state.  Sicut erat in initio, et nunc, et semper.  This is the (divine?) mystery of the universe.  Man will never comprehend this.

 

However, you may pick any creation mythos you like.  None of them explain anything because they are matters of faith.  Faith is both ineffable and unknowable.

 

Personally, I like the Christian ethos.  This does not include the drivel in the Old Testament.

[Bipin 3,402]

 

 

But then, where did the laws of physics come from which allowed that to happen?

 

 

Laws aren't matter or physical entities; they are they results of cognitive processes. They aren't material objects, and thus aren't formed in a sense concerning matter. Thus, you can't apply the same rules as you do to matter, to them. For simplicity sake, scientific laws have always been around, it's just that humans discovered (not created) them sooner or later.

 

 

I understand that.  But you're not following what I'm saying.  Scientists are asserting that the universe could have come into existence all on it's own, without any particular cause.  In other words, they believe the physical universe as we know it simply "exploded" into existence, and they claim the laws of physics could have allowed that to happen.  But if the laws of physics could have allowed that to happen, that implies the laws of physics had to have existed before the Big Bang.  If not, how could the laws of physics allow something to happen when those very laws didn't even exist?   So the question becomes: where did the laws of physics come from?  What/who created those laws?  It doesn't matter if those laws are physical entities or not.  The very fact that they could allow something to happen implies a sense of order...a governing force which allows a reaction to occur in response to a specific action.

 

 

The laws of physics are just that; laws. They cannot be created, they have always been there. What I mean is that laws are not created by an explosion or some other event; they just simply exist. Besides, it's not as if there was ever a different set of physical laws, otherwise that would go against the fundamental principle behind a law; it is true no matter what happens in the physical world. That's a concept that's been proven to one extent, ore or less, by every physics experiment ever conducted; the evidence is overwhelming.

[lhrob 213]

Obviously I don't believe that creation is a myth, nor do I consider the Old Testament to be drivel, for the very reason that Jesus himself referred to the creation account.
 
 

The laws of physics are just that; laws. They cannot be created, they have always been there. What I mean is that laws are not created by an explosion or some other event; they just simply exist.

 

You yourself stated the laws of physics aren't physical entities. In other words, they are intangible. But if you can accept that the laws of physics have always existed - intangible as they are, by your own admission - why would it be so hard to accept that God has always existed? And as such, why is it so easy to dismiss that He created the universe?

 

If the laws of physics have always existed, they would be an extension of God - not independent of him.



Man, 1000 posts and I'm still just an Associate...?  

 

*sigh*

[The_City_Builder 299]

My opinion? 

 

You can't disprove or prove either one, so in my opinion, they are both just beliefs. Until the day we can find solid proof that ___ happened, neither is true. Theists and Atheists can babble all they'd like, but it's just an endless argument of "I'm right, you're wrong etc."

 

Now, my personal belief's are this;

 

How did we come from absolutely nothing? What caused us, meaning the universe in general, to be created? Surely, something must have caused it. I personally rule out God, even though I am *non*-practicing Catholic myself. One of the big questions is what made God, and if he did create the universe, how did he do it? I believe more in the Big-Bang Theory, even though it still has it's faults, as does the God theory. The Big-Bang Theory at least tries to describe how we came from nothing; the Bible just says we were...well, made. The question is how, and I doubt we will ever know the answer to that; not in our lifetimes, that is.