Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism

[del]

Don't blame you. Why do you bother?

I'm a blowhard with a severely distorted self image which requires me to pontificate endlessly to groups of complete strangers. Due to a series of restraining orders taken out against me, i am no longer allowed to do this in person and must inflict myself on others via anonymous messageboard puling.

fixed that for you.

 

[JBeukema]

Poor del. That you must launch pathetic personal attacks on a message board to make yourself feel better actually makes me pity you

 

[ST34]

While I am not remotely a creationist, I wonder why this thread is even necesarry?

Creationists won't be convinced and non-creations don't need it.

Are you NOT familiar with the concept of an argumentative IMPASSE?

think, and then you will know (to break down this impasse, inter alia)

yeah, we all care deeply about your opinion.

moderator never should be so biassed

you're the only one here tilting at that particular windmill

no he isn't the one, there are more people on this forum which think that creationism is unprecedented idiocy, they just don't take part in all discussions

it's amusing to watch you troll the religion forum day after day. such a full life!

this forum should be also for criticism of religion, also for atheists because they have their opinions about religion, for problems from area of religious studies, and for ethical questions becouse head of this forum contains 'Ethics' - this forum shouldn't be only for bigots

it is more probably that you are troll del, then JBeukema because troll always as first is using word 'troll' in discussion

allows him to feel intellectually superior in an arena where intellect, almost by definition, has no place

so remains brainlessness

 

[ST34]

from my other thread:

in Europe whole this discussion about evolution and creationism seems comical

this reminds situation if somebody began to doubt in heliocentric theory and tried to go back to the geocentric theory - so begun discussion would be comical and plaintive, and persons which denied truths of the heliocentric theory with reference to the planetary system, should be account as the complete ignoramuses and even illiterates

existing of Evolution is one from most obvious facts as we at all know

 

[Toro]

The literal interpretation of Creationism is silly IMHO, and I say that as a Christian (albeit a lazy one). However, JB, rather than starting a new thread on your every attack on Creationism, put all your arguments into one thread

 

[JBeukema]

The literal interpretation of Creationism is silly IMHO, and I say that as a Christian (albeit a lazy one). However, JB, rather than starting a new thread on your every attack on Creationism, put all your arguments into one thread

talk to KK

 

[Liability]

I came to this thread hoping to see something interesting.

I leave, disappointed.

As a semi-related (but not too brief) parting thought, though:

Science posits that 'nothing can exist prior to itself.' In other words, for ever single solitary "thing" that exists, it had to be created somehow. Yet, it would SEEM that there must be at least ONE crucial exception to that basic premise:

Nobody can explain where the "stuff" (I love the highly technical terms) came from that went "bang" at the moment of creation. Either matter/energy came into existence without have been "created" or matter/energy was created. If it was "created" then WHAT entity created matter/energy? If it wasn't "created," then contrary to the basic premise of science, it seems that SOMETHING existed prior to itself.

Could it be that there is a Creator? Maybe the Supreme Entity some of us call "God?"

And maybe all the rest of Creation follows scientific type rules which WE are now learning how to comprehend through our study of science?

In short, could it be that a belief in a Divine or so-called "supernatural" Creator is not actually inconsistent with a belief in Science?

 

[JBeukema]

I came to this thread hoping to see something interesting.

I leave, disappointed.

As a semi-related (but not too brief) parting thought, though:

Science posits that 'nothing can exist prior to itself.' In other words, for ever single solitary "thing" that exists, it had to be created somehow.

Incorrect. remember that creation implies causation,. which in turn requires a progression along the dimension of time. Recall that space-time as we know it came into being with the big bang. Thus, there can be no 'before' the big bang, as there was no space time and, therefore, no time as we know it. This makes a causal relationship impossible in in any instance other than those in which the Big Bang is itself the cause of later events. The logical implication of this is that, since a causal relationship is impossible, a cause is impossible for the big bang. This means that creation, and therefore a creator is impossible in the case of the Big Bang.

 

[DamnYankee]

While I am not remotely a creationist, I wonder why this thread is even necesarry?

Creationists won't be convinced and non-creations don't need it.

I'm tired of refuting the same bullshit. Now, they cannot claim ignorance. Any future use of any of these fallacious and dishonest claims and tactics is stupidity, deception or both, and any who forward them can be dismissed out of hand.

I'm wondering why the need for two opposing threads....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/80869-how-evolution-works.html

 

[Liability]

I came to this thread hoping to see something interesting.

I leave, disappointed.

As a semi-related (but not too brief) parting thought, though:

Science posits that 'nothing can exist prior to itself.' In other words, for ever single solitary "thing" that exists, it had to be created somehow.

Incorrect. remember that creation implies causation,. which in turn requires a progression along the dimension of time. Recall that space-time as we know it came into being with the big bang. Thus, there can be no 'before' the big bang, as there was no space time and, therefore, no time as we know it. This makes a causal relationship impossible in in any instance other than those in which the Big Bang is itself the cause of later events. The logical implication of this is that, since a causal relationship is impossible, a cause is impossible for the big bang. This means that creation, and therefore a creator is impossible in the case of the Big Bang.

No. It's not "incorrect." It is correct. What you say amounts to nothing more than an attempt to state the conditions or pre-conditions for the "exception" to the premise. I already noted that there must be such an exception.

Let's restate it. Ordinarily, nothing can exist prior to itself. But there must have been a point in time/space (or "outside" of time/space) in which the initial condition of everything that follows did exist prior to itself.

That ^ does not rule out ALL (or ANY) "causation" from that initial point onward.

This initial point however does not appear to adhere to any of the rules of science with whch we are familiar. Whatever that initial point is, therefore, does not fall within any of our familiar rules of science or logic. Accordingly, it can be used as a kind of logical justification for almost ANY syllogism. And, consequently, it holds no explanatory power at all.

 

[JBeukema]

Let's restate it. Ordinarily, nothing can exist prior to itself. But there must have been a point in time/space (or "outside" of time/space) in which the initial condition of everything that follows did exist prior to itself.

This is fallacious. There is no 'prior' to the Big Bag, as spacetime came into existence with TBB. Therefore, the laws of causation and the very premise that 'nothing can exist 'before'), while it might be valid now, would simply not be applicable. This is similar to the fallacy of applying the laws of physics as they exist today to the early stages of the Big Bang- it simply isn't applicable.

That ^ does not rule out ALL (or ANY) "causation" from that initial point onward.

It rules our a cause for the big bang, as causation implies 'since-because' relationship between two incidents at different points in time (within spacetime, which came into existence with TBB). Such a causal relationship is therefore impossible- including the sense in which you use it. Therefore, causation and by extension creation is impossible. Evena deity could not act as a cause, for the very concept of a cause is invalid without time.

 

[Liability]

Let's restate it. Ordinarily, nothing can exist prior to itself. But there must have been a point in time/space (or "outside" of time/space) in which the initial condition of everything that follows did exist prior to itself.

This is fallacious. There is no 'prior' to the Big Bag, as spacetime came into existence with TBB. Therefore, the laws of causation and the very premise that 'nothing can exist 'before'), while it might be valid now, would simply not be applicable. This is similar to the fallacy of applying the laws of physics as they exist today to the early stages of the Big Bang- it simply isn't applicable.

That ^ does not rule out ALL (or ANY) "causation" from that initial point onward.

It rules our a cause for the big bang, as causation implies 'since-because' relationship between two incidents at different points in time (within spacetime, which came into existence with TBB). Such a causal relationship is therefore impossible- including the sense in which you use it. Therefore, causation and by extension creation is impossible. Evena deity could not act as a cause, for the very concept of a cause is invalid without time.

Wrong. YOU are FRAMING the question to suit your preconcieved notion. There is no prior to that which is outside of time/space. But if that "it" (whatever the **** it is) itself resulted in the beginning of time and space, then "it" is the exception to the rule that everything that "is" had to have (at some point) come into existence. ORDINARILY, nothing can exist prior to itself. But YOU are stating the exception.

Once "it" got rolling, then EVERYTHING else is subject to the rule, and everything else adheres to laws of causation. It is only that "it" that is devoid of the law of causation.

Since you have set it up in that fashion, you are at liberty to "draw" any conclusion you wish. Hell, you can even make up the pre-condition itself.

The long and short of what you are attempting to say (whether you care to admit it or not) is that you have NO EXPLANATION for creation. Your "reasoning" is that everything that is came into being without cause or effect since it was outside of time/space itself. I wonder what the difference is between that magical pre-condition you talk about and the supernatural existence of a Creator? YOUR only explanation is that if there is a Creator (God) then His Being implies causation and thus comes AFTER your pre-Big-Bang State. A magical beginning either way.

 

[JBeukema]

You fail. I speak of no 'magical precondition', but of the logical implication of space-time coming into being with the Big Bang.

The proper rebuttal actually involves the higher dimensions, and is unfalsifiable through any known means, making quite unscientific, which, combined with the fact that it requires a hypothesis with very little supporting evidence at all, makes it hardly a valid rebuttal at all

 

[ST34]

from my other thread:

science instead of the religion

What is God? I think that God is the name of all the things one can not explain about the world and life

it is the very brilliant observation but I will afford to improve it to:

'What is religion? I think that religion is the name of all the things one can not explain about the world and life, and what will in future explain The Science; then religion will disappear'

a long time ago people believed that whole universe consist of only our planetary system, outside it was existing only God. Later people saw that Cosmos consist of many billions of such planetary systems, so God had to go also outside this arena. In twenties of XX century astronomers discovered that Cosmos consist of not only our Galaxy, but billions (in Europe milliards) such galaxies, God again had to go outside.
Today God is 'living' outside the universe, and his only function was creating Cosmos about 15 billions years ago - he is waiting to time when some scientist will say that there was something natural what started the Cosmos and then God will have to go the way of all flesh

I think that answer given by JBeukema is proper, it is one from possible eventualities, everything, also time started in point 0 - Big Bang

but there are also some other irreligious options, one from them is conception of L.Smolin, physics professor from University of Waterloo, which he presented in his book from 1999:

The fecund universes theory (also called cosmological natural selection theory) of cosmology advanced by Lee Smolin suggests that the rules of biology apply on the grandest scales, and is often referred to as "cosmological natural selection". Smolin summarized the idea in a book aimed at a lay audience called The Life of the Cosmos.

The theory surmises that a collapsing black hole causes the emergence of a new universe on the "other side", whose fundamental constant parameters (speed of light, Planck length and so forth) may differ slightly from those of the universe where the black hole collapsed. Each universe therefore gives rise to as many new universes as it has black holes. Thus the theory contains the evolutionary ideas of "reproduction" and "mutation" of universes, but has no direct analogue of natural selection. However, given any universe that can produce black holes that successfully spawn new universes, it is possible that some number of those universes will reach heat death with unsuccessful parameters. So, in a sense, fecundity cosmological natural selection is one where universes could die off before successfully reproducing, just as any biological being can die without having children.

such beginings can each build its own new space time continuum (4 dimensions), and we don't need of existing more than 4 dimensions at all, and of course we don't need any gods

 

[Avatar4321]

If you have something useful to say or you want to discuss something, just say it. I dont have time to go through video after video because of your vendetta against Christians. Im here for discussions. if i wanted to watch something Id turn on the tv or go to youtube.

 

[Toro]

You fail.

Epic NikFail?












Sorry Nik

 

[JBeukema]

If you have something useful to say or you want to discuss something, just say it. I dont have time to go through video after video....

Yet you have time to sit down and respond to this thread, offering nothing useful and contributing nothing to the discussion, to complain about your lack of time?

 

[Avatar4321]

If you have something useful to say or you want to discuss something, just say it. I dont have time to go through video after video....

Yet you have time to sit down and respond to this thread, offering nothing useful and contributing nothing to the discussion, to complain about your lack of time?

Im not sure how long it takes you, but responding to a thread Im already in takes me about 20 seconds tops.

Watching a video would take quite a bit more time.

As you've provided nothing useful to respond to, I provided my advice to actually discuss a matter rather than simply posting a video and expecting everyone who comes here to discuss things to waste valuable time on their life watching a video we didnt want to watch to begin with. If suggesting that you come up with original thoughts to discuss isnt useful to you, there is no skin off my back. I can completely understand why you found my comments useless. Thankfully, there are other people to have discussions with that appreciate actually discussing things.

 

[ST34]

we didnt want to watch

what we ? this we this is also I and many others participants of internet
which deem that this film is very interesting and useful

there are other people to have discussions with

so you should go there and don't come back to this thread

 

[Smartt33]

Three posts... and not a single refutation 3 attacks, two ad homs, and two blatant lies

Get the t of my thread Del; you're not smart enough to discuss anything even remotely intellectual

It is so funny, science is not even as sure as you are. Intellectual has nothing to do with it, you are just a slave to what you believe, and cannot even see it. Humans were created as humans, and no evolution played role in the process. There is indeed some truth in the evolutionary processes, just not as much as some want to believe.

There is created order throughout all of creation, and that was designed by God. No need to argue, neither of us will budge on this issue.