Did God Invent Us, Or Did We Invent Him

[Azselendor]

Electricty is also a theory, but like evolution it happens to fit the facts with the evidence that currently exists. Evoltuion itself is slow change via natural selection and/or the result of energy trying to optimize itself (imagine if we unleashed evolution on WindowsXP - we could create a virutal self-feeding black hole.)

This is what I think about Creationism in school.

It should not be taught in the science class - ever. However, the schools should - at the expense of local organized religions and various other Groups - provide a class devoted discussion of philosphy of religion.

Jack, I'm in Dr. Hawking's camp that there may not have been a big-bang in the means portrayed by popular entertainment. That the universe has always existed and always will as it lacks the matter and material to create an ending in the form of a "Big Crunch". I don't see an "intelligent design" to the universe even when going down the chain and examining each link. Now I do believe there is a cause behind the formation of the universe that is natural, not intelligent. That cause is the optimization of energy.

Now you are right, this is a question of what we each think is more logical. However, his "One way or the other" is a Logical Fallacy. It's assuming if A is true, B is false. or vice versa. By far it's his worst fallacy of them and a common fallacy used against proponents of evolution and other theories. There is no proof to such a fallacy as it is hardly a black and white subject as you clearly argued and You yourself, in your rebuttal just used the logical fallacy of accent by placing emphasis on certain phrases in your comments.

This is what science is for me: The process by which the illogical, the fallacy, and the fiction is stripped away and all that remains is the reality, the fact, the truth and this process is ongoing, it does not reach an end at any time. This itself is the processes behind evolution. It doesn't have all the answers, but it looks for them. Progress.

Creationism, however, is the exact opposite. It presents itself as having all the answers already and you don't need to go farther. This in itself is a means of preventing people from even looking for more.

Now, Jack, you argue about the infinite when we much consider the plight of the creator-god in question. Who created him? If no one did, then has he always existed? If so, how? If he did not, then who created his creators? and so on and so forth.

-corrected a grammatical error

[Jack Simth]

Klvino [ORB] said:
Jack, I'm in Dr. Hawking's camp that there may have been a big-bang in the means portrayed by popular entertainment. That the universe has always existed and always will as it lacks the matter and material to create an ending in the form of a "Big Crunch". I don't see an "intelligent design" to the universe even when going down the chain and examining each link. Now I do believe there is a cause behind the formation of the universe that is natural, not intelligent. That cause is the optimization of energy.

Now you are right, this is a question of what we each think is more logical. However, his "One way or the other" is a Logical Fallacy. It's assuming if A is true, B is false. or vice versa. By far it's his worst fallacy of them and a common fallacy used against proponents of evolution and other theories. There is no proof to such a fallacy as it is hardly a black and white subject as you clearly argued and You yourself,

So the concept of non-overlapping sets whose union is U, such as A and A', is a fallacy? It's a fallacy to treat the set of real numbers as three cases: <k, ==k, and >k (for some real value of k) when the function under scrutiny calls for it? Interesting.

Klvino [ORB] said: in your rebuttal just used the logical fallacy of accent by placing emphasis on certain phrases in your comments.

So my pointing out that you didn't actually address any of his arguments - at all - in a large section you quoted - is a fallacy? Interesting. So I picked a little bit of a method you aren't quite used to. I suspect you may be a little trigger-happy on fallacies.

Klvino [ORB] said:
This is what science is for me: The process by which the illogical, the fallacy, and the fiction is stripped away and all that remains is the reality, the fact, the truth and this process is ongoing, it does not reach an end at any time. This itself is the processes behind evolution. It doesn't have all the answers, but it looks for them. Progress.

Creationism, however, is the exact opposite. It presents itself as having all the answers already and you don't need to go farther. This in itself is a means of preventing people from even looking for more.

Gee, and you were slamming me for being black & white. Talk about your double standard.

Klvino [ORB] said:
Now, Jack, you argue about the infinite when we much consider the plight of the creator-god in question. Who created him? If no one did, then has he always existed? If so, how?

Nobody, far as I've read up in The Source. Yes, as far as I've read up in The Source. The precise form of God's existance is not addressed in The Source, as far as I'm aware. This is something we probably will not know until after doomsday.

And you're dodging again.

[Azselendor]

And you're attacking without debating. Don't turn this into a flame war because you think you have an easy prey. Yes I will slam you for being balck and white and then throw the same kind of arguement right back to prove how unfair it is.

I refuse to address, fully, any argument based largely in fallacy. we're not talking about numbers in this discussion, it's about what faith is each of a member as you and electrum have pointed out.

Now something I'll point out to those against evolution is that evolution never said there isn't a god. The frequently mis-quoted CS Lewis himself was a thiest evolutionist.

Can we get back to the topic at hand?

[Phoenix-D]

Klvino [ORB]..it has been my experience that those who point out fallicies a lot mostly do it to cover issues in their own arguments. -Especially- when they do it as you've done, names and all.

Actually you're in a bit of a logic loop, given that you're refering to the fallices almost as an Authority, which is in and of itself a fallacy.

[Azselendor]

I don't consider my pointing out fallacies in another's argument a form of covering issues in my arguements. Basically it allows me to cut through to the core of the other's claims without having to debate the fluff.

I may over use it, but at times it is more than required.


But we are sliding even further off topic now.

[Mephisto]

Easy, guys!

[Electrum]

First, Klvino, I would like to apologize for what you have labeled a cheap shot. Biting sarcasm usually works so well for me. Although, I would ask you to consider this:

2 boys, Johnny & Billy, are on the playground. Well, Billy says something that Johnny doesn�t care much for. Johnny fires off: �Your ugly Billy!�, and no more.

Is Billy really ugly? Maybe he is & maybe he isn�t. Making a charge without the needed specifics amounts to nothing more than name calling. Now, if Johnny started pulling out pictures & pointing to the obvious disfigurements (My apologies to any ugly people reading this. You know who you are.), he is in a much better position to make his claim.

So, when you made your charge without the specifics, along with the condescending way you phrased it (your doing it again), I was feeling a tad attacked when I made the above mentions retort. Still, it was sarcastic, and I apologize. Nuff Said

A couple questions that are kind of fuzzy in you statement. I�m not sure if you are saying you believe the universe is eternal or the energy that the produced the universe is eternal. Would you please clarify this.

Also, please explain why your argument against a Creator (Who created the Creator, etc. infinity) wouldn�t equally apply to the Universe or Energy, perhaps not it the Who sense, but in the what sense (what created energy, what created the force that created energy�etc. infinity)

When it comes to you statements comparing evolution & creation, you picked �creationism�. I�ve previously voiced that, IN MY OPINION, creationism is as flawed as, er�ah.. evolution . Isn�t that black & white thinking. Creationism is flawed, therefore creation is wrong & evolution is right. Creationism is not the same as creation. As I�ve already mentioned, there are many in the scientific community that consider it scientificly viable.

AS far as intelligence in design, consider the field of biomimetics, the study of structure in nature, usually for the purpose of copying it. This field has given us things like Velcro (I�m still trying to figure out if this is a good thing ). We praise the genius the man that �creates� such things, when in effect, their poor imitations of the original. If the imitation is a product of genius, how much more so is the original.

Carl Sagan said this regarding the search for Extraterrestrial life:
�It is easy to create an interstellar radio message which can be recognized as emanating unambiguously from intelligent beings. A modulated signal (�beep,� �beep-beep,� . . . ) comprising the numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, for example, consists exclusively of the first 12 prime numbers�that is, numbers that can be divided only by 1, or by themselves. A signal of this kind, based on a simple mathematical concept, could only have a biological origin.�

if 1,271 bits of information in a certain sequence suggested order and design and �unambiguously� proved an intelligent source, what about the some ten thousand million bits of information encoded in the chromosomes of every living cell?

Regarding your comparison of the theory of evolution to the theory of electricity, there are some fundamental differences. With electricity, there are tangable processes which can be observed and measured. What about evolution? Evolutionist have never observed mutations�even beneficial ones�that produce new life-forms; yet they are sure that this is precisely how new species arrived. They have not witnessed the spontaneous generation of life; yet they insist that this is how life began. It sounds more like � I�m sorry, but I need to use the �f� word. That�s right, faith. By all appearances, evolution has emerged as a new religion, complete with dogmatic rhetoric and swift retribution for heretics. And I�m not the only one that feels that way.

The lack of evidence causes scientist T. H. Janabi to call the evolution theory �a mere �faith.�
Physicist Sir Fred Hoyle calls it �the Gospel according to Darwin.�
Dr. Evan Shute even said �I suspect that the creationist has less mystery to explain away than the wholehearted evolutionist.�
Astronomer Robert Jastrow said, �the emergence of this extraordinary being out of chemicals dissolved in a pool of warm water seems as much a miracle as the Biblical account of his origin.�

I found this quote interesting:
George Greenstein, an evolutionist, In his book The Symbiotic Universe, talking about the mysterious and incredible series of coincidences that are beyond explaining, coincidences without which life on earth would be impossible.
�I believe that we are faced with a mystery�a great and profound mystery, and one of immense significance: the mystery of the habitability of the cosmos, of the fitness of the environment.� � �to detail what can only seem to be an astonishing sequence of stupendous and unlikely accidents that paved the way for life�s emergence. There is a list of coincidences, all of them essential to our existence.� �t �the list kept getting longer . . . So many coincidences! The more I read, the more I became convinced that such �coincidences� could hardly have happened by chance.�
�But as this conviction grew, something else grew as well. Even now it is difficult to express this �something� in words. It was an intense revulsion, and at times it was almost physical in nature. I would positively squirm with discomfort. The very thought that the fitness of the cosmos for life might be a mystery requiring solution struck me as ludicrous, absurd. I found it difficult to entertain the notion without grimacing in disgust . . . Nor has this reaction faded over the years: I have had to struggle against it incessantly during the writing of this book. I am sure that the same reaction is at work within every other scientist, and that it is this which accounts for the widespread indifference accorded the idea at present. And more than that: I now believe that what appears as indifference in fact masks an intense antagonism. �. As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency�or, rather, Agency�must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially drafted the cosmos for our benefit?�
Greenstein recovers from such heretical thinking and reasserts his orthodoxy to evolution, reciting one of their creedal dogmas: �God is not an explanation.�
One more quote:
Le Figaro-Magazine Magazine of Paris. Reporting on an international conference held in Blois, France, where 200 leading scientists from around the world met to discuss the origin of life,
�At present, we no longer have a global explanation for the evolution of life on earth �. the old theories are collapsing.� The magazine sums up the comments of several scientists this way: �The Darwinian theory can explain a certain number of secondary things but not the essential stages of evolution, such as the appearance of new organs or new types of organization such as birds or the vertebrates.� Commenting on the huge gaps that riddle the theory, paleontologist Robert Fondi said: �If we picture a genealogical tree of evolution, only the leaves and a few branches exist but no knots or trunk. It is a tree that cannot stand!�
Nuff for now
Oh! One question off the subject. Where is Mt. Kailasa?

[Azselendor]

Thank you mephisto.

Electrum, apology accepted and I offer my apology back for the shots I fired across your bow. You make a good point with kids. They'll fight one minute, and be best buddies the next. that's something the world needs more of.


Basically my thoughts are that since the universe lacks the matter to end itself, as Dr. hawkings suggests in his theories and papers, that it may not have a beginning and it's expansion (which is inconsistant as we are expanding faster now than at the big bang whch was faster than 2 billion years ago) is very inconsistant with the theory of the big bang.

Actually my argument against a creator has nothing to do with evolution. It's basically that I believe, under any kind of scientific examination possible or invented, that a creator god cannot exist without creating a terminal unresolving contradiction in the fabric of reality itself. Now I would not be opposed to the theory of a god that is not an all-in-one-everything god. IE, a god that is limited in power and scope.

Energy itself, I do not view and some kind of deity or god, it simply something that does not cease to completely exist. It changes, adapts, and continues in one form or another. But it also decays over time. many so-called PEM's sold on the internet prove that even recycled energy can be exhausted. Energy itself has always existed, in the universe in many, many forms. Gravity, weak attractors, quarks, atoms, electricty, wind, dirt, ice, the sun and so on all contain energy to varying amounts. Where did it come from in the beginning, I'll point out I don't feel the universe had a beginning to begin with. So where it came from is a great mystery none of us will ever live to see answered. That's the best part of science, the quest to find out, however.

On Creationism vs. Evolution. Creationism is something that assumes all the facts up front are true at face value without examination or proof. It's unwilling to budge from that. Infact, Evolution and Creationism cannot be compared at all. It's like comparing star wars and star trek. Evolution is a theory designed to explain why things change over time slowly. It has flaws since the original theory has had little revision work done to it since its inception. More energy was wasted in fighting it. Evolution actually never rules out a divine hand in it, nor does it rule out that outside intervention can happen. IE, genetic enginneering. Creationism does have tis flaws, like light before a source of light and plants without a sun to power photosynthsis (spelling?). And even if we plug in the theory that one day was a 3/4s of a billion years or something, I don't think any plant cold live that long without the sun. You are right many don't rule out a divine creator. What they do, however, require is hard proof.
It's like a court case. Unless you have real proof, that cannot be debunked under cross examination, expect it to get knocked down in a few minutes.

Arguing about the copying of velco from nature is in itself a type of fallacy. Sorry to call it again, but I do. The flip side of this arguement, on the same fallacy, is that many praise god's genius in creating humans in his image, but note how much of a poor imitations of the original we all truely are. "If the imitation is a product of genius, how much more so is the original?" <-Now I just flipped your closing into accent fallacy?



Carl Sagan aside, since first-contact scenarios are not of debate at the moment. http://www.research.ucla.edu/tech/ucla04-099.htm and beside that, I'll bring up mention of the nearly 3000 genetic, built in diseases all humans have in them. I'll also point out that heating and cooling DNA triggers combination and speration. Which is in effect, driven by a form of energy. Soemthing our planet 3.5 billion years ago had a lot of. Next on the list is you msut remember that DNA wasn't discovered until after darwin's death and long after he wrote his celebrated theory. As such, a new study into evolution is warranted.

You are equating a computer program to genetic structure. That's the velcro arguement again.

There is proof of evolution existing. In humans, vestigial organs provide us with links back to our past. We don't need them any more because we evolved beyond the need for them. Appendx is alone, while no longer serving any clear purpose, may be the remains of of the larger cellulose-digesting cecum found in our herbivorous ancestors. The list of vestigial organs in humans have gone down from the original list. Some no longer being found in humans, others turned out to be needed organs. The coccyx (tail bone) is another, Wisdom teeth, plica semilunaris (It's a fold of skin in the corner of your eye that is the remains of a nictitating membrane - 3rd eye lid). Goosebumps is a vestigial reflex that actually served one purpose, now serves another. There are vestigial organs based on gender as well. Why to male mammals need nipples? Well, that's because we don't. It's just because up until a certain point in pregnancy, we're all gender neutral/female. That means while we have no gender early on, our genetics default to female unless a certain hormone from the mother changes that.

Several kinds cetacians have leg bones, despite being unable to live on land as of right now. So why would they have such bones? The wings of ostriches and emus provide more evidence in the bird families.

Now because vestigial organs are supporting evidence for the theory of evolution, the concept has been vigorously attacked, with creationist claiming that anything "vestigial" it must be utterly useless. This is a misrepresentation of the term and function: An organ can be vestigial if it serves no function or a different function in a modern animal than it did in an ancestor. Goosebumps, for example, in human ancestors may have been used to raise up body hair to make one appear larger before a perceived predator (like a dog or a cat will raise the hair on thier back). Now it is more of a tell-tale sign of the body being too cold or a sudden cold breeze. The gas baldder of many fish may indeed be a vestigial lung, left over from the occasionally-air-gasping ancestor is common to both ray-finned fish and land vertebrates.

Evolution occurs slowly, over time. Not suddenly or with the flick of a finger. It was a slow process, taking its time. Evolutionist have observed beneficial changes. For example, they observed a specific kind of moth in england that changed fro it's natural white to a dark grey. Why? most likely because of the pollution and industrial soot that covered thier habitat made it easier for preadators to eat them. I think that's a pretty useful change that took several generations of moth to generate.

Is evolution a religion? by all means no. You're attacking it on baseless grounds. The Theory of Evolution is like any theory and some day, it may be debunked and replaced by a more accurate theory of evolution in the future. Evolution itself, however, made a lot of sense and still does. As the theory of evolution by natural selection has become universally accepted in the scientific community, it has replaced other explanations including creationism and Lamarckism (often mistaken by creationist for evolution even today). I think what is happening here is that you mistook Lamarckism for evolution. Evolution doesn't lash out and torture people who tink otherwise, nor does its followers break into homes of the non-blievers and murder them all. It doesn't trigger microscope burnings in people's lawns or go door to door harrassing you on your day off. By accusing evolution of relgious dogma and rhetoric you are now trying the a is true/b is false fallacy.

T. H. Janabi, is not a credible source. This guy attacks evolution the same way he attacks non islamic creationist. This guy's book was listed with "Garlic - Nature's Original Remedy" by Stephen Fulder/John Blackwood and "Incredible Islamic Scientists - Vol. 1 & 2" by K. Ajram and "The Miracle Of Islamic Science " by Dr K Ajram (now he's a doctor!).

Sir Fred Hoyle, whom died 4 years back, also -In his later years with Chandra Wickramasinghe- promoted the theory that life evolved in space, spreading through the universe via panspermia, and that evolution on earth is driven by a steady influx of viruses arriving via comets.
Evan Shute. My intial research into him revealed two men. One is in heart medicine and the vitamin fad. The other man apparently ahd one book and little-to-no biographical information about his scientific career and research processes. However, absed on his claims, he appeals to the theory that because something is complex, it cannot happen by chance or random occurance.

Robert Jastrow's comments, however, I found have been taken out of context with his original statements on intelligent design.

George Greenstein, I'll need a complete text, not abrdiged quotes to render a decision on his comments. however, He does tend to argue devil's advocate which I respect.

Le Figaro-Magazine, Link please? Afterall, anyone can say "The Union-Leader recently covered a scientific conference in bostom where 500 of the top minds in science all discussed and eventually ruled that the world is flat". Then list quotes.


Now my hands hurt... lol

Mt. Kailasa or Mt. Kailash is a 6000+ footer in Tibet. It's a sacred point for at least four religions - two of them being major religions. Those those it's the Navel of the World (so I guess earth has an outie?) or it's also the sacred home of the God Lord Shiva. It's also has the distinction of never being climbed - but the chinese gov't keeps handing out permits to climb it that no one follows through with. For myself, I simply like the way it looks and some pictures of it are breathtaking. The Chinese gov't, however, is hell-bent on building roads and tourist traps all around it and over it which is destroying a huge amount of cultural heritage which is mind boggling given that the chinese gov't only hands out 200 permits a year to visit the site.

But otherwise, it's a really spectacular place.

[Instar]

Creationism = teh suck
That is all.
I'd debate it but people are too close minded.

[bax]

Holy, deep thread Batman. I think about God alot. Or, the concept of God, I should say. And that's what I think needs clearing up. You can talk all you want about "God" but what's the definition? A "person-like" presence, up there, in charge of it all. Unlikely. So, no I don't think God "invented" us.

The argument of "what are the odds that humanity could arise out of simple chance??" doesn't hold because if you look at it that way you can also say. Well, if this is one of the possibilities, of course it's happening somewhere.

No matter what, all that really matters is what we choose to do. We can use faith to either decide we believe in God, or to not believe in him. There is no proof. Either way our daily conduct matters.

Atrocities: you asked the question, and I wonder what you think more precisely? What makes me curious is the belief in fate and freewill. Whether or not there is a God. Whether or not he invented us, or we invented him...

Do we have a destiny?
Are we really in control of the decisions we make?
Does everything happen for a reason?