Who or what created the creator ?

[Hollie]

The creator I believe exists outside of time, space, and matter,which is our universe and all that is in it.

The charlatans at the Institute of Creation Research abandoned their credibility because the argument of an “uncreated creator” puts you firmly into the realm of the supernatural. And speaking of realms and the supernatural, You do not need to create them, because that had been done a long time before you. The assertion of the gods supernatural realm to explain a natural realm simply begs the question that if you need realms to explain realms, then why do you not postulate a super-supernatural realm to explain the supernatural one? Why only a hierarchy of 2, when one suffices and two leads to infinity?

It’s probably for the best that supernatural realms remain in the domain of philosophy as science cannot explain the supernatural. Since the need for “omni everything” gods has never been established (it is merely assumed, and only by some) the discussion is rendered useless in its first inception. The motivation for humans creating gods has come from many directions, but not because we actually “need” such gods. We have a quite workable mechanism or set of tools (i.e. evidence and reason) for testing claims and separating error from truth. Are they fallible? They certainly can be but of course, none of those tools has ever lead us to any firm conclusions of the supernatural.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This has been a question to me in several threads concerning evolution and creation or in ID.

Well we believers don't question or shouldn't quiestion what the scriptures say if we do then what do we base our faith on concerning the creator if we can't take him at his word. The word say's God is eternal that in itself is something that requires faith to believe.

But if there is a designer that created all we can see who am I to question this creator being eternal.

But I have a question for evolutionist who or what evolved the evolver ?

Who created the creator? The first charlatan who figured out appeals to authority would provide him (maybe her) power and control over others. Fear is mightier than the sword.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The creator I believe exists outside of time, space, and matter,which is our universe and all that is in it.

The charlatans at the Institute of Creation Research abandoned their credibility because the argument of an “uncreated creator” puts you firmly into the realm of the supernatural. And speaking of realms and the supernatural, You do not need to create them, because that had been done a long time before you. The assertion of the gods supernatural realm to explain a natural realm simply begs the question that if you need realms to explain realms, then why do you not postulate a super-supernatural realm to explain the supernatural one? Why only a hierarchy of 2, when one suffices and two leads to infinity?

It’s probably for the best that supernatural realms remain in the domain of philosophy as science cannot explain the supernatural. Since the need for “omni everything” gods has never been established (it is merely assumed, and only by some) the discussion is rendered useless in its first inception. The motivation for humans creating gods has come from many directions, but not because we actually “need” such gods. We have a quite workable mechanism or set of tools (i.e. evidence and reason) for testing claims and separating error from truth. Are they fallible? They certainly can be but of course, none of those tools has ever lead us to any firm conclusions of the supernatural.

It is clear you are reduced to spewing rhetoric, you let me know when you are ready to put our differences aside to discuss the issues.

 

[Hollie]

It is clear you are reduced to spewing rhetoric, you let me know when you are ready to put our differences aside to discuss the issues.

There is nothing rhetorical about my earlier post which you cannot address. The question is simple: why do you insist you god(s) is/are uncreated? You demand from others proof of their claims but you excuse yourself from the very same requirement.

What I've seen with consistency is that creationists state their case -- which is simply reiterating tired and necessarily false "commandments" from charlatans such as those at the ICR or a similar view of "creation". As for evidence, there is none. Not a little, not some, not a whisper... but none.

Evolutionary scientists state the scientific data, which is borne out by evidence such as geological and biological mechanisms seen today, the fossil record, age-dating, stratification, tectonic plate theory, astronomy, physics, paleontology, etc. etc. (by the way, all of these sciences crumble into nonsense if the Genesis -or similar- account is true.)

Creationists say, "No." And then begin a litany of special pleadings to explain why all the evidence seen today was actually different some 6,000 years ago, or they cite special cases where there is some minor inconsistency and use that as a canopy to disassemble everything, such as carbon-dating certain snails doesn't work, since there is a carbon fluctuation in the building of their shells, hence all carbon dating is wrong, hence all citations of an old earth are wrong.

But none of this is not being done to force the evidence to fit into their particular world-view, which apparently they believe breaks apart and dissipates into the void if the fundamental overview of creation isn't upheld (you know what, they're right-- if any part of the bible is not literally true, then the whole thing is suspect, so they have every right to be concerned); no, this is being done because it's a reasonable interpretation of the data. Well, it's not.

In every instance, creationist "rebuttals" are shown to be a litany of fallacious reasoning, describing impossible mechanics, tossing away and dismissing rock-hard (pun intended) evidence, making non-comparable comparisons, until finally when reason pushes them into a corner where their unsupported and unsupportable claims lie in tatters before them, they escape into the "God did it" safety net or become sarcastic. And they still expect creationism to be taught as "science".

What is the point of this? I've yet to see a creationist actually challenge the evolutionary perspective and evidence. They do not do it, and the reason is simple: They cannot. They can't answer even the simplest questions without resorting to miracles. Okay, fine, you have a religious belief. No one says you're not entitled to a religious belief, but it's a religious belief, nothing more. Trying to force a religious belief into a scientific paradigm is foolish and time-wasting.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It is clear you are reduced to spewing rhetoric, you let me know when you are ready to put our differences aside to discuss the issues.

There is nothing rhetorical about my earlier post which you cannot address. The question is simple: why do you insist you god(s) is/are uncreated? You demand from others proof of their claims but you excuse yourself from the very same requirement.

What I've seen with consistency is that creationists state their case -- which is simply reiterating tired and necessarily false "commandments" from charlatans such as those at the ICR or a similar view of "creation". As for evidence, there is none. Not a little, not some, not a whisper... but none.

Evolutionary scientists state the scientific data, which is borne out by evidence such as geological and biological mechanisms seen today, the fossil record, age-dating, stratification, tectonic plate theory, astronomy, physics, paleontology, etc. etc. (by the way, all of these sciences crumble into nonsense if the Genesis -or similar- account is true.)

Creationists say, "No." And then begin a litany of special pleadings to explain why all the evidence seen today was actually different some 6,000 years ago, or they cite special cases where there is some minor inconsistency and use that as a canopy to disassemble everything, such as carbon-dating certain snails doesn't work, since there is a carbon fluctuation in the building of their shells, hence all carbon dating is wrong, hence all citations of an old earth are wrong.

But none of this is not being done to force the evidence to fit into their particular world-view, which apparently they believe breaks apart and dissipates into the void if the fundamental overview of creation isn't upheld (you know what, they're right-- if any part of the bible is not literally true, then the whole thing is suspect, so they have every right to be concerned); no, this is being done because it's a reasonable interpretation of the data. Well, it's not.

In every instance, creationist "rebuttals" are shown to be a litany of fallacious reasoning, describing impossible mechanics, tossing away and dismissing rock-hard (pun intended) evidence, making non-comparable comparisons, until finally when reason pushes them into a corner where their unsupported and unsupportable claims lie in tatters before them, they escape into the "God did it" safety net or become sarcastic. And they still expect creationism to be taught as "science".

What is the point of this? I've yet to see a creationist actually challenge the evolutionary perspective and evidence. They do not do it, and the reason is simple: They cannot. They can't answer even the simplest questions without resorting to miracles. Okay, fine, you have a religious belief. No one says you're not entitled to a religious belief, but it's a religious belief, nothing more. Trying to force a religious belief into a scientific paradigm is foolish and time-wasting.

Look man don't have the ability to name the exact time of death of something recent and you expect man to be able to come up with a way to date items including the earth. No one knows the age of the earth or the universe. The conclusions come from assumptions that can't be proven.

On one hand you want to say some things remain constant and and when it helps your case you fall back on chaos. You can't have it both ways. How in the world does chaos produce order ?

 

[Liability]

Who or what created the creator ?

The Big Bang.

Who or what created the Big Bang?

The creator.

 

[Hollie]

Look man don't have the ability to name the exact time of death of something recent and you expect man to be able to come up with a way to date items including the earth. No one knows the age of the earth or the universe. The conclusions come from assumptions that can't be proven.

False!

Conclusions about the age of both the universe and the earth share agreement among the majority of scientists. That will, of course clash with what is propagated by the charlatans at the Institute of Creation Research but a 6,000 year old earth is not taken seriously by scientists.

Where we really differ is in this way: I believe (and I think this belief is supported by the continuing quest for knowledge by people, especially those with a rational point of view) that we as a species have before us the chance to follow a path that will evolve us to become more intrinsically knowledgeable about the nature of existence, and that route must be through reason. This is not a matter of choice; there is presently and simply no other (or better) alternative open to us: faith has no authority, reason does. The only choice we have is to ignore the path and remain hopelessly mired in our present beliefs that the Universe is by nature incomprehensible. I see no better way of guaranteeing that something is incomprehensible than to insist it is.

Look at the grandeur of the universe through the Hubble. Watch footage of man first landing on the moon. Watch the images from the Voyager spacecraft as they swept past the great gas planets in absolute silence, giving us vastly more sight than any so-called revelation from a superstitious doom-sayer. Yes, theists see "god's handiwork" when they look at these things, but the truth is, they would be blind to it if they relied on their gods -- it is technology and reason which brought those images to you.

On one hand you want to say some things remain constant and and when it helps your case you fall back on chaos. You can't have it both ways. How in the world does chaos produce order ?

I never made any such statements.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Look man don't have the ability to name the exact time of death of something recent and you expect man to be able to come up with a way to date items including the earth. No one knows the age of the earth or the universe. The conclusions come from assumptions that can't be proven.

False!

Conclusions about the age of both the universe and the earth share agreement among the majority of scientists. That will, of course clash with what is propagated by the charlatans at the Institute of Creation Research but a 6,000 year old earth is not taken seriously by scientists.

Where we really differ is in this way: I believe (and I think this belief is supported by the continuing quest for knowledge by people, especially those with a rational point of view) that we as a species have before us the chance to follow a path that will evolve us to become more intrinsically knowledgeable about the nature of existence, and that route must be through reason. This is not a matter of choice; there is presently and simply no other (or better) alternative open to us: faith has no authority, reason does. The only choice we have is to ignore the path and remain hopelessly mired in our present beliefs that the Universe is by nature incomprehensible. I see no better way of guaranteeing that something is incomprehensible than to insist it is.

Look at the grandeur of the universe through the Hubble. Watch footage of man first landing on the moon. Watch the images from the Voyager spacecraft as they swept past the great gas planets in absolute silence, giving us vastly more sight than any so-called revelation from a superstitious doom-sayer. Yes, theists see "god's handiwork" when they look at these things, but the truth is, they would be blind to it if they relied on their gods -- it is technology and reason which brought those images to you.

On one hand you want to say some things remain constant and and when it helps your case you fall back on chaos. You can't have it both ways. How in the world does chaos produce order ?

I never made any such statements.

Many have that debate this issue.

 

[Lucid_Gumption]

It is clear you are reduced to spewing rhetoric, you let me know when you are ready to put our differences aside to discuss the issues.

There is nothing rhetorical about my earlier post which you cannot address. The question is simple: why do you insist you god(s) is/are uncreated? You demand from others proof of their claims but you excuse yourself from the very same requirement.

What I've seen with consistency is that creationists state their case -- which is simply reiterating tired and necessarily false "commandments" from charlatans such as those at the ICR or a similar view of "creation". As for evidence, there is none. Not a little, not some, not a whisper... but none.

Evolutionary scientists state the scientific data, which is borne out by evidence such as geological and biological mechanisms seen today, the fossil record, age-dating, stratification, tectonic plate theory, astronomy, physics, paleontology, etc. etc. (by the way, all of these sciences crumble into nonsense if the Genesis -or similar- account is true.)

Creationists say, "No." And then begin a litany of special pleadings to explain why all the evidence seen today was actually different some 6,000 years ago, or they cite special cases where there is some minor inconsistency and use that as a canopy to disassemble everything, such as carbon-dating certain snails doesn't work, since there is a carbon fluctuation in the building of their shells, hence all carbon dating is wrong, hence all citations of an old earth are wrong.

But none of this is not being done to force the evidence to fit into their particular world-view, which apparently they believe breaks apart and dissipates into the void if the fundamental overview of creation isn't upheld (you know what, they're right-- if any part of the bible is not literally true, then the whole thing is suspect, so they have every right to be concerned); no, this is being done because it's a reasonable interpretation of the data. Well, it's not.

In every instance, creationist "rebuttals" are shown to be a litany of fallacious reasoning, describing impossible mechanics, tossing away and dismissing rock-hard (pun intended) evidence, making non-comparable comparisons, until finally when reason pushes them into a corner where their unsupported and unsupportable claims lie in tatters before them, they escape into the "God did it" safety net or become sarcastic. And they still expect creationism to be taught as "science".

What is the point of this? I've yet to see a creationist actually challenge the evolutionary perspective and evidence. They do not do it, and the reason is simple: They cannot. They can't answer even the simplest questions without resorting to miracles. Okay, fine, you have a religious belief. No one says you're not entitled to a religious belief, but it's a religious belief, nothing more. Trying to force a religious belief into a scientific paradigm is foolish and time-wasting.

Look man don't have the ability to name the exact time of death of something recent and you expect man to be able to come up with a way to date items including the earth. No one knows the age of the earth or the universe. The conclusions come from assumptions that can't be proven.

On one hand you want to say some things remain constant and and when it helps your case you fall back on chaos. You can't have it both ways. How in the world does chaos produce order ?

Although man does not have the ability to name the EXACT time of death of "something", science does have methods of dating, like Radiometric dating (often called radioactive dating) it is a technique used to date materials such as rocks, usually based on a comparison between the observed abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope and its decay products, using known decay rates. It is the principal source of information about the absolute age of rocks and other geological features, including the age of the Earth itself, and can be used to date a wide range of natural and man-made materials. Together with stratigraphic principles, radiometric dating methods are used in geochronology to establish the geological time scale. Among the best-known techniques are radiocarbon dating, potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating. By allowing the establishment of geological timescales, it provides a significant source of information about the ages of fossils and the deduced rates of evolutionary change. Radiometric dating is also used to date archaeological materials, including ancient artifacts.

Then there's Carbon 14 dating, it is a scientific method for measuring the age of material that has a biological origin such as bones, cloth made from natural fibers, artifacts made of wood, and charcoal.

All plants and animals contain three types of carbon isotopes. The most common isotope is carbon 12. It accounts for roughly 99% of all the carbon atoms found in a plant or animal. Another isotope is carbon 13, It comprises about 1% of the total. The third isotope is rare but always present: carbon 14. It is found in only small amounts compared to carbon 12. In a living plant or animal there is only about one carbon 14 atom for every trillion carbon 12 atoms.

Carbon (C12, C13 and C14) is acquired by plants from carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. Animals get carbon by breathing in carbon dioxide and by ingesting other animals and vegetation. As a result all living things have a specific ratio of carbon 12 and carbon 14 isotopes. Generally speaking, it is the same ratio found in the atmosphere. The ratio begins to change when a plant or animal dies and it is no longer taking on carbon. Carbon 14, unlike carbon 12 and carbon 13, is radioactive; meaning that over time the carbon 14 atoms will decay. When the isotope carbon 14 decays it gives off a beta particle and in doing so becomes nitrogen 14. The amount of carbon 12 and carbon 13, however, remains constant.

The half-life of different isotopes range from fractions of a second to millions of years. The half-life of carbon 14 is 5730 years. This means that in 5730 years, half of the carbon 14 isotopes will have become nitrogen 14. In the subsequent 5730 years, half of the remaining carbon 14 will have decayed

Since we are able to measure the percentage of carbon 14 that remains in a sample, we can determine its age. The sample may be from a human bone, an animal antler, a piece of line made from flax fibers, a wooden tool or charcoal from an ancient fire. All of these things were once part of something once living.

 

[tjvh]

Boooooosh!!!!!! Oops wrong thread.

 

[bobgnote]

Read page one, of the Qu'ran, Youwerefartedon.

Read the part, about the Djinn. If you can grok that or guardian angel rants, and there must be a bunch of those, you are a lot closer to some kind of truth.

And then, some asshole said, "Let there be electronic surveillance."

Man keeps trying, to play God, or the NSA wouldn't have a new, terabyte-stealing house, in Bluffdale, Utah. If there is somebody who can give you dreams, feelings, and memories, you need to separate that phenomenon, from your idiotic, dated creationism-nonsense, for your own good, and for the good of people you might screw up, with your bad English, which I presume is US, so get a clue about who might play God, to spite law and reason.

What could be worse? Always comes worse! The US has all sorts of agencies, like NASA and NOAA, etc., which put up information, about global warming, but Christian retards can't all get behind the Pope of Rome, who has decreed global warming is happening, but look at all the heretics, who won't believe the planet will heat the hell up!

The Pope blames atheism, but I think the problem is heretics, within the Catholic Church, or recently lapsed, to become oil company executives. Other assholes think they are Christians, without a Pope, who is smart enough to announce global warming is happening.

The planet will heat up, the oceans will acidify, storms will get stronger, and the seas will rise up. Then they will get hot and anoxic. Humans will have to move north or south of the tropics, or water will be scarce, except during big storms. Here comes HELL!

Do you think you need to be saved, by a creator, or should you smarten the hell up, and get a Pope, to help you think, since you have the kind of little brain, people who didn't cross-breed tend to have?

I am just going to watch HBO's The Borgias and surf the web. I don't need a real Pope. Somebody gave Pope Alex (Jeremy Irons) a dose of poison, so we have to see, if he lives, next season. Of course, this means Lucrezia will get doing this, to somebody else.