So...how were things "created"?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Scotracer
Guru
Posts: 1772
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 5:25 pm
Location: Scotland

So...how were things "created"?

Post #1

Post by Scotracer »

Since there's a certain sector of religious faith that believes everything was "created" rather than forming over billions of years due to natural processes, I feel the need to pose a question:

How were these things created?

Science is used to increase the sum of knowledge of mankind. Simply stating something was created doesn't really help, does it? So, please tell me and everyone else just how these things were created.
Why Evolution is True
Universe from nothing

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
- Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: So...how were things "created"?

Post #2

Post by Cathar1950 »

Scotracer wrote:Since there's a certain sector of religious faith that believes everything was "created" rather than forming over billions of years due to natural processes, I feel the need to pose a question:

How were these things created?

Science is used to increase the sum of knowledge of mankind. Simply stating something was created doesn't really help, does it? So, please tell me and everyone else just how these things were created.
By God silly.

He rolled His big sleeves up and spake and it came to be using His Word.
It is all so simple.
Then again it says the Wind of the Elohim hovered over the deep or chaos like a mother bird on her nest.
Then there is the great Chaos Sea beast He defeated and that must have had some results. See the Psalms and Job.

User avatar
Scotracer
Guru
Posts: 1772
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 5:25 pm
Location: Scotland

Post #3

Post by Scotracer »

Ah so it was...................magic? Right - that makes sense. Did he say Abracadabra too? Even for effect?

And what created this magician?
Why Evolution is True
Universe from nothing

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
- Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
OnceConvinced
Savant
Posts: 8969
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
Location: New Zealand
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 67 times
Contact:

Post #4

Post by OnceConvinced »

Pretty much so. One of God's magic phrases was "Let there be light" and there was light. He is somehow able to generate things from nothing. He just waved his magic wand.

Society and its morals evolve and will continue to evolve. The bible however remains the same and just requires more and more apologetics and claims of "metaphors" and "symbolism" to justify it.

Prayer is like rubbing an old bottle and hoping that a genie will pop out and grant you three wishes.

There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.


Check out my website: Recker's World

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #5

Post by Cathar1950 »

OnceConvinced wrote:Pretty much so. One of God's magic phrases was "Let there be light" and there was light. He is somehow able to generate things from nothing. He just waved his magic wand.
I guess some people still want an anthropomorphic God even as they talk of nature and take metaphor literally.
I don't know how it can even qualify as a Christian argument or stance as it crosses boundaries and seems more reactionary at its roots in a 19th century world when Christians were questioning the supernatural.
It also serves a comfortable myth for cult notions that are also often reactionary.

User avatar
Alan Clarke
Banned
Banned
Posts: 160
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:03 am

Post #6

Post by Alan Clarke »

Creationists believe that God created matter & energy ex nihilo.
Hebrews 11:3 wrote:Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
McCulloch wrote:But they [creationists]don't let their unacknowledged ignorance on the matter stop them from speculating about some eternal spirit creator.
Keep in mind that evolutionists do the same but with an eternal “NOTHING� creator:
Wikipedia wrote:While the concept of a universe being created from nothing sounds improbable, it is perfectly consistent with the laws of conservation of energy because its total energy value is zero... The ultimate conclusion was that, on the contrary to popular belief, it was possible for the universe to suddenly appear from nothing. (source)
At first glance, which seems to be more logical?
1. NOTHING Creator
2. SPIRIT Creator

People are usually more convinced by reasons they discovered themselves than by those found by others. For this reason, I won’t do your looking for you. But the claim to have found NOTHING appeals little to those such as myself who claim to have found SOMETHING. Or perhaps I should say, “Jesus Christ found me, I didn’t find him.�
McCulloch wrote:Both sides recognize abiogenesis. At one time there was no biological life on earth. Subsequently there was. Biological life somehow came from that which was not biological life. We look for natural processes to explain this event. You look for magic.
First let’s look at some rules:

The Law of Causality
No material thing can create itself. Every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause. The effect is never quantitatively greater and/or qualitatively superior to the cause.

I recognize abiogenesis as NOT being feasible WITHOUT a quantitatively greater or qualitatively superior cause. You recognize abiogenesis as being feasible with a lesser antecedent cause. Also, we have bodies of people and animals that have all the necessary ingredients for life, but they are DEAD. You cannot put a quantitative/qualitative value on LIFE without violating natural causes. Give me your best definition of “LIFE�, without using the word to define itself, and I will easily apply your woefully inadequate definition to something dead or inanimate. So you are in a helpless fix of “hoping� or “having faith� that your abiotic organism will actually acquire “LIFE� when those improbable components are improbably arrayed. If you look for “natural processes� to explain abiogenesis, then you are already in contradiction because your claim to conclusively define what your target is for your abiogenetic hypothesis has been shown to be impossible. If you think not, then please explain to the forum members what entity and/or attribute would have to reside inside that Petri dish or test tube in order for you to boast that LIFE was created. Certainly you are not going to create a mouse from scratch so it will undoubtedly be something extremely small. Hopefully you won’t cheat by “borrowing� too much from pre-existing life. If your supposed organism “lives� for 1 pico second, there will be a lot of controversy as to whether it was actually “living�. What do you think is a reasonable definition for “success� before you get started? You state, “You look for magic.� Magic alludes to a “sleight of hand�. From previous experience, I have seen evolutionists exercise nothing but “sleight of hand� when exhibiting their evidences for “evolution�.
McCulloch wrote:Holy strawman, batman! I don't know of anyone who claims that humans spontaneously generate.
Robin, the reason you don’t know anything about it is because you were born too recently. Listen to Batman who is older and wiser:
“… swirling in the waters of the oceans is a bubbling broth of complex chemicals. … progress from a complex chemical soup to a living organism is very slow.�
Holt Earth Science – 1994 p. 282

“It is in these oceans, about 3.5 billion years ago, that scientists believe the first living organisms appeared.�
Glenco Biology – 1995, p. 398

“… humans probably evolved from bacteria that lived more than 4 billion years ago.�
HBJ Earth Science – 1989, p. 356
Merriam-Webster Dictionary wrote:abio·gen·e·sis
Pronunciation: \ˌ�-ˌbī-�-ˈje-nə-səs\
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from 2a- + bio- + Latin genesis
Date: 1870
: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter
Connect the dots then ask yourself the following question: If the word “abiogenesis� is substituted for the phrase “spontaneous generation�, what does it mean? Don’t answer immediately.

The Universe is decaying (heat death).
McCulloch wrote:I missed where this was a biblical creationist teaching.
It comes from the fact that when energy is expended it becomes less useful. It is irretrievable. If the Universe was infinitely old, there shouldn’t be any useful energy left. Since useful energy is still in existence, the Universe obviously had a beginning not too long ago. Even your theory seems to concur with that idea. There are many other evidences that the universe isn’t that old, many of which your theory embraces also. Secondly, the Bible supports the idea of the 2nd law of thermodynamics:

Isaiah 51:6 "Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished."
McCulloch wrote:Information generates itself by chance from lower or non-intelligent matter as is modeled repeatedly with chaos theory.
Sleight of hand. Show your reference or computer source code. The last time I looked at source code that was supposed to generate higher intelligence, it fell back into the category of being a subset of something more intelligent.
McCulloch wrote:Information is always created by higher intelligence with the notable exception [sarcasm] of God.
You obviously doubt the “first cause� which is why you keep looking at an infinite number of increments leading to a cause. I know a guy who thought the exact same way. While he was “looking in increments�, he stopped searching when the truth finally hit him. Without going into the bloody details, I’ll just say it involved a train. If you live for 23 more years, do you think you’ll find it?

User avatar
Scotracer
Guru
Posts: 1772
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 5:25 pm
Location: Scotland

Post #7

Post by Scotracer »

The origins of existence/matter/energy and perhaps life are probably the best arguments for a god...but there's one glaring issue I see with all of this (and no Alan, it's not the 2nd law of thermo which you still don't get!): Even if it were shown that a superior intelligence/power were required, how on earth would we ever show what that thing was like or which god it was? These arguments hold equally for all gods...which doesn't strengthen the Christian creationist's argument.

Also, I'd like to point out that your critique of an infinite universe is pointless because no one is postulating it. I know all too well the problems behind such a statement. It's simply a "we don't know". You would strengthen your argument greatly if you could actually show such a being exists or has existed. Without it...it's rather limp.

Oh and Alan, what created the creator?
Why Evolution is True
Universe from nothing

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
- Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2573 times

Post #8

Post by JoeyKnothead »

From Page 1 Post 6:
Alan Clarke wrote: At first glance, which seems to be more logical?
1. NOTHING Creator
2. SPIRIT Creator
I'd go with 3. We don't know
Alan Clarke wrote: Or perhaps I should say, "Jesus Christ found me, I didn't find him."
Could you ask him to come to the forums so we can put this matter to rest?
Alan Clarke wrote: First let's look at some rules:

The Law of Causality
Of course, but let's just keep God exempt, while requiring all other hypotheses to comply.

I won't bother with the "evolutionists think life started this way" argument. Alan Clarke has been repeatedly told that evolution only kicks in once life has formed. An inability to incorporate new information is indicative of an indoctrinated mind.
Alan Clarke wrote: It comes from the fact that when energy is expended it becomes less useful. It is irretrievable. If the Universe was infinitely old, there shouldn;t be any useful energy left.
I've yet to see scientists declaring the universe to be infinitely old. Current estimates are around 13-14 billion years.

As usual, all you have are strawmen that couldn't scare a crow off an ear of corn.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
youranilldonkey
Student
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 1:32 am

Post #9

Post by youranilldonkey »

I've yet to see scientists declaring the universe to be infinitely old. Current estimates are around 13-14 billion years.
I see where Alan was going,
What about the universe 15, or 20 billion years ago, and if 20 what about 40, or 100 billion years ago? Where did the first spark of energy come from? What happened before there was a universe? When was time/matter/energy brought into existence

What is the scientific response to it?

User avatar
Grumpy
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2497
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 5:58 am
Location: North Carolina

Post #10

Post by Grumpy »

youranilldonkey
What about the universe 15, or 20 billion years ago, and if 20 what about 40, or 100 billion years ago?
All of the evidence tells us that time itself began 13.7 billion years ago, there is no 14 billion years ago yet.
Where did the first spark of energy come from?
We don't yet know and, due to the fact that "Before" is on the other side of a singularity, we may never know.
What happened before there was a universe?
See the last answer.
When was time/matter/energy brought into existence
Um...13.7 billion years ago.
I see where Alan was going
You're the only one, just don't follow, watch from afar, just sayin'.

Grumpy 8-)
"Fear of God is not the beginning of wisdom, but it''s end." Clarence Darrow

Nature is not constrained by your lack of imagination.

Poe''s Law-Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won''t mistake for the real thing.

Post Reply