Evolution and Creation

[Acriku]

Sneakgab, the first law of thermodynamics, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Therefore, it was always here.

[TMA_1]

remember there are no laws in physics. Nothing is exact. Thats the first thing you are taught in a college level physics 101 classroom.

Also Energy can turn to matter. That requires some sort of action. We have no clue what happened at the beginning of Time-space. We just have good guesses.

[Sneakgab]

''Sneakgab, the first law of thermodynamics, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Therefore, it was always here.''

The explanation being that it was ''always there'' is not acceptable, that's like someone asking why you carried out a certain action and you simply reply: because. It doesn't explain anything

Not to discredit Atheism, but that priniciple isn't much of a principle

Also please to do not assume theists are all blind to anything but religion just because the're defending their ideas, I guaranteu you that if someone comes up with an all changing 100% right, no way it can be wrong theory, they will then follow that theory. In that way, they are just as open to change as atheists...

[Acriku]

Sneakgab I highly doubt that. No matter how much it convinces others, there will always be a lot of people staying true to their beliefs. They may say "Oh that's God's way of testing us in a more complex manner", etc.

[Sneakgab]

But there are always extremists for everything, you can't let a few people make reasonable theists look bad

[Acriku]

Sneakgab, you would deny your faith to God if a theory that is accepted 100% to be true denied the existence of God? I think only weak thiests would change their beliefs.

[emprworm]

And there will always be agnostics/atheists staying true to their beliefs, no matter what.

[Acriku]

Atheists have no belief Empr. That's what atheist means for crying out loud. I could argue this, but being the fanatic you seem to be about this, I'll be lazy.

Maheem sat on the rock, frustrated at the cloudy sky. She normally enjoyed watching the sunset as she waited for her husband to return from the fields, but the unseasonal weather had thwarted her today. A storm is coming, she thought to herself, pulling the furs tightly around her body as the breeze became chilly. The baby had started crying, so she gathered up her tools and the basket of fruit and went inside, closing the door against the darkening sky.

Her child was quite beautiful - a little baby boy just four months old. The baby gripped her finger when she offered it to him, and this seemed to calm him somewhat. She sat down beside the crib and stroked the young one's forehead, singing him a lullaby that she remembered from her own childhood. The baby settled down and slowly drifted off to sleep once more, but she remained by him, singing quietly and waiting for her man to come through the door. What was keeping him? He should be back by now.

Quietly, she stood up and walked to the door, to see if she could see him before it became too dark. Going outside, she saw something that terrified her like nothing had done before.

The sky.

It was almost black, and the clouds were rolling and boiling as if they were alive, pouring across the sky from horizon to horizon like flowing tar. In the distance, a herd of antelope, normally so graceful, sprinted across the low ground in panic, trying to flee but not knowing where to go. An elephant was calling out in fear somewhere in the trees behind her, and thousands of birds were rising from the forest. There was no sign of her man, the gentle father of her child, the husband who she loved so dearly.

The child! She ran back inside and picked him up, holding him to her chest and folding the furs around him. She went to the entrance of the dwelling, praying that her husband would be in sight. He was not. Now the rains came. Rain like she had never seen before. There was hardly any wind, and the rain was falling vertically to the ground, as if it wanted to get there with no delay, as if it was being forced to the earth. Lightning flickered at the end of the valley, and the animals screamed, but she could not hear them above the sound of the rain. The parched land around the dwelling was turning into thick mud now, and beginning to wash away. The roof was being battered and starting to break up, and the small fire in the hut had been extinguished. Apart from the lightning, the world had gone completely black. Tears ran down her face as screamed in terror, and the baby had now begun to cry because of the cold, and the wet, and the noise, and the fear he could sense in his mother.

Maheem stood there, not knowing what to do, or where to run, or why this was happening, or where her husband was. Almost unbelievably, the rain increased in intensity until it had the ferocity of a waterfall. She slipped in the mud, and the water began to wash her down the slope. She could not open her eyes because of the strength of the rain, which felt like it was bruising her entire body. The baby in her arms, normally so gentle and quiet, was screaming in fear, and she desperately tried to keep the choking mud away from his mouth.

And then rain stopped. The world was still black, and Maheem pushed herself up onto her knees, hugging the baby and wiping the cold mud from him. Nothing. No noise but the sound of the thick, filthy waters draining past her. No rain.

Just darkness. Even the animals were silent. Shakily, she managed to get to her feet, trying not to slip in the darkness.

Maheem felt the ground tremble slightly beneath her feet, and felt her ears pop as the air pressure suddenly changed.

The wave came.

A thousand feet high, and travelling at nearly the speed of sound. It washed across the continent, obliterating everything in its path, scouring the rocks of all living things. Picking up trees, mud, rocks, people and animals as it went, it became more a solid than a liquid.

She had just enough time to turn round and scream before it hit her.

* * * * * *

Eight days later, the last contact Maheem had with other humans was when the Great Ark nudged her broken body aside, the lifeless child still held tightly in her dead arms, as it ploughed through the churning waters of the Flood.

[TMA_1]

religious tolerance is extremely bias and at times silly though. They even promote destructive religions. Its liberal as can be.

[Acriku]

Whether they are credible does not conscern me, it is what they say that makes you think. Stop using abusive ad hominem tactics :P (Just learned about ad hominem tactics, which are apparent in here a lot)

[Acriku]

its probable that God created the universe. The universe is made of finite changing things that need causes. Simple math tells us that the sum of any set of finite changing things that needs a cause is in itself a finite changing thing that needs a cause. Therefore, the universe itself, like all things in it, also needs a cause. Yet atheism can provide no cause because atheism states the universe is uncaused (despite logic and physics requiring it to have a cause). God **IS** logical. God caused the universe. Nothing else could have. Your alternative is ILLOGICAL (that the universe caused itself) - in fact, it is absurd. God is the rational default position. Atheism is the invented alternative.

You said this a while back, and I was reading on logical fallicies, and something made sense. The logical fallacy of equivocality. You say the universe needs a first cause, which you call God - which is understandable. Then you talk about God causing the universe and being the default position. The first cause - God - whatever God may be - has no attributes beyond that of creating the universe. Then you give God - the second term of God - a different meaning, one that falls into the traditional Christian God (outside of this post as well). To put it more simply, you are using two different meanings for God, and thus it is illogical to conclude logically that God is the default position, or "correct". God I love about.com they rule.

[Repoman]

Says who? You, the book, your teachers, your parents? Who?

says logic. Obviously it is impossible for an eternal being to have a beginning.

You want everything backed by scientific discovery? Well why dont you start first, then. Please tell me exactly what scientific discovery says that the universe popped into existence via some gargantuan quantuum fluctuation? What sicentific discovery says that an explosion creates anything? Funny how the 'big bang' - an explosion the size of quadrillions of nuclear bombs somehow creates all this. Have you ever heard of dropping a nuclear bomb on a city, blowing it up, then all the pieces falling back together again, re-forming the city? Lol. Thats precisely what your so-called "science" is postulating. But wheres the observation? There is none. No one was there at the Big Bang. No one. Period. Puny little homosapiens roughly 2 meters tall, 90% water, who eat Big Macs and drink Pepsi are going to say what happened billions and billions of years ago? THEY HAVE NO IDEA.

Emp you contradict yourself once again. For once you are right but by being right you are destroying your argument. We have no idea on how the first single celled organism was created. Simple man we don't know!!!! Listen once again !!! We don't Know!!! One more time we don't know.

We can make educated guesses on how the first single celled organism began but at the moment we have none, We dont know how the world was first created as there is no scientific evidence that proves it either way. We only have educated scientific opinion which can in time prove to be wrong as it is opinion. We cant explain everything as we do not have evidence to explain everything. We can say some things are proven such as evolution as this can be proven to occur from scientific evidence(i am not getting into this argument again with you as it is more than amply proven)

Faith is believing in something without evidence.

You can quite rightly pick holes in scientific opinion as it is opinion but you cannot pick holes in evidence. i.e We share 98% of genetic code with chimps.

To take a quote from the australian acedamy of science

"All scientific ideas are theories, imperfect and subject to test. That the theory of evolution is imperfect, and still the subject of study and modification, affirms that the theory is part of science. Many attempts to modify and expand the theory have been successful, showing (since Darwin's day) the gene-basis of inheritance, the basis of gene-reproduction in the double helix structure of DNA, the 'genetic drift' basis of the origin of breeds, and so on. Many challenges to the fundamentals of the theory have failed empirical test. The theory has attracted enormous empirical testing and remains one of the most powerful of scientific ideas.

or emprworm i imply you to read this please. If you can read this and still believe in creationism then you are the definition of blind faith

http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html

The point is that despite all the evidence to the contrary you still believe in your religion which unfortantly means you are brain washed. You have a very difficult task ahead of you and i hope that you can open you mind up as it will be very rewarding if you can.

Good luck and i hope that i get to play you in emperor some time soon. Unfortuantly these threads have been taking away from my emperor time and my company is taking off like a wildfire and dont have the time to devote to these threads anymore but good luck with your lifes endeavours and please continue to prolong emperor's life for as long as you can :'(

[emprworm]

lol its repoman and aikriku vs. emprworm.

haha sure i'll take that any day. I actually wish it could be a live debate in front of a live audience. Your arguments are fallicious. start with Acriku

[Repoman]

You obviously didn't read it because it is without doubt comprehensively proving the existance of evolution. Your inability to digest information that is contrary to your beliefs only furthers my argument saying that you have well and truly been brainwashed.

You say that you have refuted everything within that document in detail ::) ::)

You are kidding, all you did was point out a few inconsistancies with scientists opinion

so read it again or everyone will see how naive you really are

http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html

I hate to say it mate but you are exactly the same as the terrorists who ran into to the twin towers, just as brainwashed just brainwashed in a different way)

They thought they were going to allah when you die

You think you are going to God when you die

quite sad really

[Anathema]

an action is not an attribute. Lol. And no matter what attributes you ascribe to the supernatural cause to the universe, atheism still falls regardless. Once we can logically conclude there are supernatural causes, then bye bye atheism. Defining attributes to the supernatural cause are not necessary to refute atheism. Either way, atheism loses.

Now here's the chalenge, Emprworm: prove there is a supernatural universe ;). You can't prove that, it is supposedly outside our universe. No living man has ever laid eyes upon it, yet you claim it exists and that therefore you are indisputedly right. Wow some logic ::).

The universe did not just pop into existence- like Acriku

[pointybum]

Earth they will argue nothing can come from out of nowhere or always be here, but they will argue God was always here.

well, duh! Its plainly obvious that the natural things in this natural world obey natural laws It takes a serious man of blind faith to think that the natural things in this universe just popped into existence on their own. In fact, such faith from just one single atheist is more faith than the entire subcontinent of India. Things just do not pop into existence on their own. Ever hear of laws of science?

But in reference to a being that is not natural to our natural universe, those natural laws no longer apply. Lets put it simple- here is 10 year old science (you learn this in grade school)

Brick = finite, limited, natural existence = bound to natural laws

Acriku

[Acriku]

Emprworm, obviously you did not understand my post. Also, I meant to say that the first cause - called God - has no attributes beyond that of a need to cause the universe. Better? ok. I am not saying otherwise to that the universe needs a first cause, because that was no relevant in my post.

not so. I make logical inferences on the attributes of God based upon expectant characteristics of the First Cause through observation of the universe and reflections upon myself.

First off, explain your God and the attributes associated with it. Then we can talk.

I use one meaning and one meaning alone: infinite, eternal, personal Creator.

Babbling that is what this is. You use the First Cause as something that caused the universe, then you talk about a God that is eternal, infinite, and personal. Two different things. And thus, you commit a logical fallacy. You do this once again here:

lol. rediculous. evidence is subjective. there is plenty of evidence for God, you just dont consider it evidence. How do you know that you will wake up on time tomorrow? I have empirical evidence that people DIE. I have empirical evidence that alarm clocks go BAD. I have empirical evidence that people dont wake up on time. The only evidence YOU have are your past experiences. Your personal feelings and experiences that tell you "oh, I do BELIEVE I will wake up tomorrow" even though we know with certainty that your death is inevitable. Therefore your FAITH in your own existence come tomorrow morning is entirely based upon subjective evidence. So cut this "faith is believing without evidence" crap because you LIVE BY IT. In fact, you have faith that your view of faith is correct. AND you have faith that your so-called evidence has been interpreted correctly by you. What if YOU INTERPRETED YOUR EVIDENCE WRONG? Yet you still BELIEVE in your interpretation. There is evidence for God. Plenty of evidence. You just reject it and believe it to be something else.

So take your religious zeal and just admit it. I will respect your belief system and your religious faith, repoman, only when you are ready to admit it. Until then, I do not respect it when people are in denial.

Faith has different meanings. As for athiests, we use faith all the time. Faith that my mom loves me, faith that my computer won't blow up, faith my alarm clock will work. This is all faith based on past evidence. Christian faith is a faith in the dark. No such "logical" evidence, which you fanatically pronounce, and therefore you commit yet again the logical fallacy of equivocality.

[emprworm]

Now he's struggling with maths. I seldom say this anyone online - get a fucking life. You are talking complete bull and I honestly think you know it too. You will argue the case that the world is flat next.

pointybum, the one that needs a life is you. THis is simple high school math. Either you are not yet 14 years old, or you are an uneducated person who spends too much time wasting your brain on playing computer games. The math is very simple. SInce you obviously cannot understand it, i feel sorry for you because you dont care about education or your schools haven't taught you much. However, if you are a child who has not yet taken high school math, then that is ok and I dont hold anything against you. I am hoping that when you get to high school, they will teach you simple algebra. I am sure that most people in here who know simple algebra can understand it. And if you tell someone who studies mathematics to "get a life" then you have just told all the scientists at Intel and the geneticists trying to cure AIDS to get a life as well. Studying math is a noble profession, one that you could use dearly. So stop playing computer games and start studying things that matter. You dont have to believe in God, thats not what I am saying. I am saying that you should learn things that matter more than this fictional game.

And lastly, dont waste up the entire forum quoting my entire post just to post one sentence. What you did was rediculous and I believe it is against forum policies. If you want to make a short comment on my entire post, just quote a part of it. You don't need to quote 2,947 characters just to respond with a tiny 2 line post. You are wasting this forum.

[emprworm]

Faith has different meanings. As for athiests, we use faith all the time. Faith that my mom loves me, faith that my computer won't blow up, faith my alarm clock will work. This is all faith based on past evidence. Christian faith is a faith in the dark. No such "logical" evidence, which you fanatically pronounce, and therefore you commit yet again the logical fallacy of equivocality.

yes, faith is not a linear model. Now you are getting somewhere. Atheists that define faith as simply belief without evidence is a meaningless definition, because evidence is a subjective determination. The only kind of evidence that you can state is objective is evidence that can be measured with the five senses by anyone- i.e. something that exists in the present . We have objective evidence that the sun exists. Because we can all see it. It presently exists. You don't need any faith to believe that the sun exists. It is there- it is measurable, it is visible.

But when you start talking about how the sun formed- and you start digging up the past, now you are entering the realm of faith and belief. Science cannot prove the past. You cannot prove empirically that a man named Aristotle lived. It is logical and rational to believe he lived because we have copies of his writings. This is evidence that anyone can see. However, one might make a claim that the evidence we have of Aristotle is actually the writings of someone else. He might have what is called counter - evidence and this is a key term. When you have 2 sets of evidence- both positive and counter, then you must make a subjective determination and believe in one or the other, even though either one could be true.

I stated earlier that there are three and only three possibilities for the existence of the universe.

1) The universe began to exist, and was caused supernaturally (external to itself)

2) The universe began to exist, and self-effected (or internally caused itself)

3) The universe exists eternally in the past.

One of them must be true, while the other 2 must be false. Science cannot prove any of them. Any atheist/agnostic that criticizes one possibility to favor another is making faith-based claims. When an atheist says "option 1 is irrational"- he is making a claim of faith and belief. How does he know that? What proof does he have that makes option 1 less "rational" than the other 2 options? All faith and belief. There is no science here. Not that I mind that, because I dont. I admit I have faith. I just dont respect that atheists aren't honest enough to admit the same.

Christian faith is a faith in the dark. No such "logical" evidence, which you fanatically pronounce, and therefore you commit yet again the logical fallacy of equivocality.

Faith in the dark only due to your subjective interpretation of the evidence. I see abundant evidence for Christianity. It is my opinion that you reject it- not because it isn't evidence, I believe you reject it simply because you just dont want it to be true. You loathe the idea of kneeling before a superior being. That is most likely the real reason you refuse to believe. But if you want evidence, it is there. A mountain of it. But because you don't believe in God to begin with, it is pointless arguing evidence for Christianity. Therefore, I am not going to focus on that topic. I am going to focus back on the topic of the existence of God. You accuse me of committing equivocation. You are repeatedly committing the fallacy of the red-herring and the strawman. You want to muddle the issue by

drawing focus off of talking about the question of God's existence by mixing it up with the accuracy of the Bible. Those are two completely different topics and it is 100% futile to talk about the Bible with an atheist. First we talk about "Does God Exist". Therefore, I am not going to talk about the BIble whatsoever because that is irrelevant to that question.

There is much evidence for God. You subjectively determine that it is not evidence, though I determine that it is clear evidence. When someone says there is no evidence for God, I simply cite the evidence, and they say "that is not evidence" yet I do the same for their so-called evidence. In the end, since you cannot look up and actually watch the formation of the universe (like you can see the visible sun), any empirical claims made upon how it began OR accusations that one of the three possibilities are irrational over another are taken solely by belief, and belief alone.

[Dude_Doc]

How does an atheist see the difference between good and evil?

[emprworm]

there is no such thing as good and evil for an atheist. they objectively claim that morality is subjective. funny how they can logically do that eh?

[Inoculator9]

Atheists usually act upon a moral code that they determine. Just because youre an atheist doesn't mean you don't have ethics. My dad is an atheist like myself, and he is a professor of morals and ethics.

[emprworm]

well i know atheists have moral code, but they objectively state such moral codes are subjective. a nice little logical conundrum

[Anathema]

Religious persons agree there is a God (or multiple ones), but other then that they disagree on just about everything. Moral code differs. An aztec would say it is perfectly justified to sacrifice a human life to ensure a good crop, while a christian would say this is inhuman.

If moral code is objective, then whos moral code is objective? For the Germans in WW II it was justified to murder jews. Now they resent that.

Religion is no garantue for morality, just a bit of insurance that an established code will be preserved.

[Inoculator9]

Exactly. For example, the Muslims think they are the good guys, Americans think we are. It's the same kind of situation.