I find it interesting, that despite the evidence available for a Creator, people continue in denial. I want to know how it is explained away.
What follows are numerous articles discussing this idea (creationism/probability, evolution vs. creationism, etc.)...please see the Big Bang thread for even more evidence for a Creator.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/ ... creat.html
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... ew&id=2292
http://www.mbowden.surf3.net/ape.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wirestory?id=315976
http://www.renewamerica.us/analyses/050818hutchison.htm
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm
Mere Chance?
Moderator: Moderators
Post #11
It's pretty clear that we aren't really getting anywhere here. I'll suggest that a bit of "moderating" might be in order.
1. Unicorn, can you give us a better debate topic? As has been pointed out, your assumption is that a creator is "explained away." To get any sort of discussion on this, you'll have to find someone who actually explains away a creator. That's going to be hard--and part of the evidence is that the discussion here is rather a bit of random rambling. It would help if the debate topic had something to do with the thread title. I think, unicorn, that you are assuming that those who do not see the hand of god in everything consider it to be fact that everything is entirely chance. I know that many people make that assumption, even if you haven't, but that assumption is far from true. Without something in the Official Debate Topic that gives us a clue about where "chance" is supposed to come into play, we can't easily discuss it.
2. It's pretty useless to post links. Instead, give us a couple of short quotes, or your own summary of the links. Links should be posted to indicate the source of information that the debater has used. But they are lousy debate by themselves. After all, whoever wrote the stuff on that link may have been wrong. Or maybe they wrote too much to be easily discussed. For example, what good would it do for me to post a link to the Encyclopedia Britannica? There's information there, but so what?
3. In this case, the logic of "debate" should be that those who think there is evidence for a creator should present that evidence. Those who think this evidence is insufficient should explain why it is insufficient. Those who think purely natural mechanisms can lead to life as we know it should present evidence for this view; those who don't accept that logic should explain why the logic is insufficient.
Thank you, all.
1. Unicorn, can you give us a better debate topic? As has been pointed out, your assumption is that a creator is "explained away." To get any sort of discussion on this, you'll have to find someone who actually explains away a creator. That's going to be hard--and part of the evidence is that the discussion here is rather a bit of random rambling. It would help if the debate topic had something to do with the thread title. I think, unicorn, that you are assuming that those who do not see the hand of god in everything consider it to be fact that everything is entirely chance. I know that many people make that assumption, even if you haven't, but that assumption is far from true. Without something in the Official Debate Topic that gives us a clue about where "chance" is supposed to come into play, we can't easily discuss it.
2. It's pretty useless to post links. Instead, give us a couple of short quotes, or your own summary of the links. Links should be posted to indicate the source of information that the debater has used. But they are lousy debate by themselves. After all, whoever wrote the stuff on that link may have been wrong. Or maybe they wrote too much to be easily discussed. For example, what good would it do for me to post a link to the Encyclopedia Britannica? There's information there, but so what?
3. In this case, the logic of "debate" should be that those who think there is evidence for a creator should present that evidence. Those who think this evidence is insufficient should explain why it is insufficient. Those who think purely natural mechanisms can lead to life as we know it should present evidence for this view; those who don't accept that logic should explain why the logic is insufficient.
Thank you, all.
Panza llena, corazon contento
-
Dilettante
- Sage
- Posts: 964
- Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:08 pm
- Location: Spain
Post #12
I agree with Jose. We need a specific assertion to debate, something like "It's more likely that we are the product of some cosmic intelligence than the product of chance and necessity", or something along those lines I suppose. Then we could discuss whether the improbability of an event really implies that someone planned it or not (I suspect not, unless we are willing to believe that all lotteries are rigged).
I mention necessity because many people seem to be under the mistaken impression that chance and necessity are opposites, when in reality they are just on a different plane. Let me explain this: if I throw a cubic dice marked with numbers from one to six, getting a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 is a matter of chance. However, not getting a zero, or a 7, or an 8 is a matter of necessity.
I mention necessity because many people seem to be under the mistaken impression that chance and necessity are opposites, when in reality they are just on a different plane. Let me explain this: if I throw a cubic dice marked with numbers from one to six, getting a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 is a matter of chance. However, not getting a zero, or a 7, or an 8 is a matter of necessity.
Post #14
Welcome, Demon38! It's always good to have a new voice in the discussions.
I suspect that you will get some fiery responses to your statement.
Those who believe in a creator also believe that there is extremely strong evidence. In their view, the difficult thing to understand is how anyone can not see how obvious the creator is.
This makes it somewhat challenging to engage in a discussion about the nature of the evidence, and the criteria with which one judges any particular bit of evidence to be valid.
There may be another thread somewhere here for this type of discussion, but what the heck. There isn't a clear discussion topic here, and your comment leads me to think that you don't consider "explaining away" the creator to be the issue. Can you expand on what you've said, and give us some support for the "lack of evidence"? It might also help if you could explain what you mean by "innuendo." Hmmm...it also occurs to me to ask whether you think there is evidence against a creator.
I suspect that you will get some fiery responses to your statement.
Those who believe in a creator also believe that there is extremely strong evidence. In their view, the difficult thing to understand is how anyone can not see how obvious the creator is.This makes it somewhat challenging to engage in a discussion about the nature of the evidence, and the criteria with which one judges any particular bit of evidence to be valid.
There may be another thread somewhere here for this type of discussion, but what the heck. There isn't a clear discussion topic here, and your comment leads me to think that you don't consider "explaining away" the creator to be the issue. Can you expand on what you've said, and give us some support for the "lack of evidence"? It might also help if you could explain what you mean by "innuendo." Hmmm...it also occurs to me to ask whether you think there is evidence against a creator.
Panza llena, corazon contento
Post #15
I want to point out one perspective that I feel is too often ignored: We are all very used to our nice green world, but it hasn't always been like this. Every major scientific discipline shows how different things were in the past. From Astronomy to Zoology the evidence is clear that a the world didn't just pop into existence in it's current form. A process of gradual transformation is what is seen. The stars come first in the chain of things that life should be thankful for. This isn't some arbitrary Soltheist philosophy, it is extremely sound science. The well-understood process of nucleosynthesis gives us a timeline for the change in the abundance of the different types of elements. Only after a few cycles of star birth and death do we get the heavier elements needed to make green worlds like ours.
The reality of stars forging the lighter (and useless on their own for life) elements into heavier ones during their incredibly long lifetimes and then eventually blasting them out to produce the raw material for the next generation of solar systems, with more interesting chemistry, gives us an incredibly significant cosmic drama that is not at all captured by those who talk about a creator.
Of course all this could be ascribed to a creator, if we push him further back into the process -- but this is a continuum that goes all the way back to a horizon appearing some 13 billion light years in the distance. Everything within this range is very much a product of contingency which is where all the "chance" comes in to play.
The reality of stars forging the lighter (and useless on their own for life) elements into heavier ones during their incredibly long lifetimes and then eventually blasting them out to produce the raw material for the next generation of solar systems, with more interesting chemistry, gives us an incredibly significant cosmic drama that is not at all captured by those who talk about a creator.
Of course all this could be ascribed to a creator, if we push him further back into the process -- but this is a continuum that goes all the way back to a horizon appearing some 13 billion light years in the distance. Everything within this range is very much a product of contingency which is where all the "chance" comes in to play.
-
USIncognito
- Apprentice
- Posts: 180
- Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:17 am
Post #16
Let me join the chorus of "Yawn... where's the beef?"
Since the premise of the OP appears to be the trite, "but where did X" where X equals the Universe, physical laws, DNA life, etc. "come from?" I feel confident enough of the evidence of common ancestry/descent to concede - God did it.
Now, starting from the premise that God created the Universe, jumpstarted the genetic code and the origin of life... how about you address whether evolution has occured over the last 3 billion years or not?
Since the premise of the OP appears to be the trite, "but where did X" where X equals the Universe, physical laws, DNA life, etc. "come from?" I feel confident enough of the evidence of common ancestry/descent to concede - God did it.
Now, starting from the premise that God created the Universe, jumpstarted the genetic code and the origin of life... how about you address whether evolution has occured over the last 3 billion years or not?
