PDA

View Full Version : Intelligent Design Is Dead: A Christian Perspective



Fraggle145
1/2/2012, 06:23 PM
I thought this was a pretty good opinion piece on ID and evolution etc... from a religious perspective.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-wallace/intelligent-design-is-dea_b_1175049.html


Intelligent Design Is Dead: A Christian Perspective
Paul Wallace
Science & religion writer, teacher

Casey Luskin recently published a post titled "It's Time for Some Folks to Get Over Dover" at Evolution News and Views (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/its_time_for_so054551.html). It is a rehashing of some perceived problems with Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the 2005 case in which Intelligent Design (ID) was declared a form of creationism and therefore unsuitable for the science classroom. In his post Luskin declared, "Rumors of ID's death are greatly exaggerated."

This remark seems to be aimed at bloggers like Jason Rosenhouse, who, in a Science Blogs post in November, declared ID dead (http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/11/twenty_years_after_darwin_on_t.php):


In the nineties and early 2000s, ID seemed to be producing one novel argument after another... it was [then] possible to wonder seriously if ID was a serious intellectual movement, or just another fad that would die out on its own. That verdict is now in. ID is dead.
Rosenhouse is right. ID has no future. His arguments -- that over the last few years ID proponents have given us nothing new, that it is mired in the past, that it has merely been recycling its arguments -- are all convincing. He rightly points out the scientific weaknesses of ID while simultaneously shining a light on the strengths and recent successes of evolution.

In sum, Rosenhouse does an admirable job dismantling ID from a scientific point of view. But there are other perspectives from which the folly of ID is evident. One of them takes us back to a Christian astronomer who worked at the dawn of the scientific revolution.

In October 1604 Johannes Kepler was living in Prague and was deeply into his work on Mars that would later reveal the planets' elliptical orbits. He was sidetracked from this study to comment on a new star, or nova, that appeared that month a few degrees north of Scorpius. In his short work De stella nova, published in 1606, he wondered what could have caused such an event. He considered a number of possibilities, but on this question his own astronomical theory was silent.

He began to consider special creation: a deliberate, separate act of God unconnected with any other natural event, direct and special tinkering by the divine hand. But in the end he withdrew from that conclusion, writing "before we come to [special] creation, which puts an end to all discussion, I think we should try everything else." Over 400 years ago, Kepler understood that to claim special creation is to put an end to scientific inquiry.

Kepler did not reject special creation because he put limits on God. Nor did his rejection flow from a desire to push God out of his work. Instead, it sprung from his conviction that God's creation is not founded in obscurity, darkness, and confusion. He believed, in a way that far outstripped his contemporaries, in the comprehensibility of God's creation, because it was God's creation. Kepler's fundamental axiom may be stated:

The universe has been designed; therefore it must be comprehensible.

Jump forward now to 1996, arguably the heyday of ID. That is the year Michael Behe came face-to-face with his own difficult scientific problem: the evolution of the bacterial flagellum, a tail-like rotor that aids in cellular locomotion. The complexity of the flagellum led Behe to conclude that it could not have evolved through any of the standard mechanisms of evolution.

Whether or not this is true is not important for my purpose. What is important is that, unlike Kepler, Behe went on to claim special creation. He had the flagellum in mind when he wrote in Darwin's Black Box, "It is a shock to us... to discover, from observations science has made, that the fundamental mechanisms of life cannot be ascribed to natural selection, and therefore were designed." Behe has led us to the fundamental axiom of ID, a sharp contrast to that of Kepler:

The universe is incomprehensible; therefore it must have been designed.

Although ID supporters do not name God as the designer in their official work, they are no less cagey about their Christian commitments than Kepler was about his. Yet they have opted for the path Kepler rejected, and, in so doing, "put an end to all discussion." That Kepler refused that road out of reverence for God is a tremendous irony.

Kepler reminds us that religious people do not need to shrink from science and its naturalistic methods, because they more than others have a rich tradition in which to locate these things, a context that allows them to take science seriously but not too seriously, and a strong bulwark against the lull of materialism.

For a person of faith, ID is not just an unnecessary choice; it is a harmful one. It reduces God to a kind of holy tinkerer. It locates the divine in places of ignorance and obscurity. And this gives it a defensive and fearful spirit that is out of place in Christian faith and theology.

Looking upon the new star in September 1604, could Kepler have envisioned stellar evolution, mass-transfer binary stars, and explosive carbon fusion? No, and so he remained silent. His humility, his belief in the richness of creation, and his expansive faith allowed him to admit ignorance while leaving the door of causal science wide open.

ID denies its proponents that freedom. Having opted to close the door on science, they steal from themselves the opportunity to see nature more deeply. In so doing they dig in their heels, refusing to be drawn, Kepler-style, closer to the creator God they all believe in. This is the great irony of ID.

Because ID is established in scientific ignorance, it cannot last. It is passing even now. And its religiously-motivated rejection by Kepler 400 years ago suggests that the seeds of its demise were planted even then. In this long view, it may be that ID never even managed to arrive.

badger
1/2/2012, 06:53 PM
I have always maintained that there are science books and there are religious books and not try to combine them.

The Holy Bible is translated into new languages, but does not change. I'm sure that Muslims would say the same about the Quran and LDS'ers would say the same thing about the Book of Mormon.

Science books come out with new editions every time someone sneezes a new discovery outta their nose. The world is flat, then it's round. Time to get some fresh-caught leeches to suck all the bad, disease-ridden blood outta the sick person's system. Perhaps we can get some life forms to spontaneously generate in this old chicken broth today? I am holding my breath waiting to hear what they'll say about global warming next.

In a nutshell, it's a reason why people should not interchange "I think" with "I believe." Thinking is science. Belief is religion.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
1/3/2012, 01:29 AM
wrong forum

Fraggle145
1/3/2012, 10:46 AM
wrong forum

Not really... I see this forum as a place to put things that can turn into internet slap fights, which this topic has surely proven capable of doing.

I could be wrong, if you can convince a mod to move it be my guess.

Mississippi Sooner
1/3/2012, 10:49 AM
Intelligent design is a socialist theory!

There, now it's in the right forum.

NormanPride
1/3/2012, 11:07 AM
God put fossils in the ground and birds with weird beaks out there just to mess with people. I mean, if you could, wouldn't you? I know I would.

badger
1/3/2012, 11:11 AM
God put fossils in the ground and birds with weird beaks out there just to mess with people. I mean, if you could, wouldn't you? I know I would.

Even God has a sense of humor. Just look at the Platypus.

P.S. We sincerely apologize to all Platypus enthusiasts out there who are offended by that thoughtless comment about the Platypi. We respect the noble Platypus, and it is not our intention to slight these stupid creatures in any way.

KantoSooner
1/3/2012, 11:57 AM
Haven't we done this to extinction already?

The religious are going to continue believing in their particular story no matter how many logical arguments are put forth demonstrating the illogic of doing so.

The non-religious are not suddenly going to hurl their minds into neutral and profess a religion.

The discussion will either fade into silence or turn into a slanging match, depending on the courtesy level of the folks involved.

The best we can hope for is to keep too much arrogance out of the legal code so that we can all live together in peace and without too much interference from those who believe differently.

Now I'll go back to handling snakes and speaking in tongues.

"He walks, he talks, he crawls on his belly like a reptile! He's Joe-Joe, the dog-face boy! Show me your devotion! Let me see a sea of green!!"

Midtowner
1/3/2012, 12:01 PM
Haven't we done this to extinction already?

The religious are going to continue believing in their particular story no matter how many logical arguments are put forth demonstrating the illogic of doing so.

The non-religious are not suddenly going to hurl their minds into neutral and profess a religion.

The discussion will either fade into silence or turn into a slanging match, depending on the courtesy level of the folks involved.

The best we can hope for is to keep too much arrogance out of the legal code so that we can all live together in peace and without too much interference from those who believe differently.

Now I'll go back to handling snakes and speaking in tongues.

"He walks, he talks, he crawls on his belly like a reptile! He's Joe-Joe, the dog-face boy! Show me your devotion! Let me see a sea of green!!"

There's a healthy middle ground for sure. Many churches do not subscribe to the literal truth of the Bible as being necessary for the central tenants of Christianity to be valid. Further, even multiple Popes have gone on to say as much as you'd have to be a fool not to consider evolution to be a valid and scientifically established theory.

NormanPride
1/3/2012, 02:42 PM
Even God has a sense of humor. Just look at the Platypus.

P.S. We sincerely apologize to all Platypus enthusiasts out there who are offended by that thoughtless comment about the Platypi. We respect the noble Platypus, and it is not our intention to slight these stupid creatures in any way.

I love you.

IBleedCrimson
1/3/2012, 07:00 PM
Faith cannot be explained by logic. It is impossible. And thats fine and all, but I hate when people try to meld the two. Faith is ILLOGICAL! Accept that for what it is.

If that illogical faith brings you happiness, instills values that you want in your children, and is accompanied by a good community of others of faith, then (no sarcasm) God Bless!

But quit pretending your beliefs are reasonable or have anything to do with science, physical laws, etc. They aren't, and THATS OK, but quit pretending they are.

AlboSooner
1/3/2012, 08:14 PM
I have always believed that faith in God is a set of complicated decisions based on reason, and experience. There is nothing illogical about that.

Charles Darwin once said:
Reason tells me of the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of a man, and I deserve to be called a Theist. Charles Darwin, the autobiography of charles darwin 1809-1882, ed. Nora Barlow.


John Leslie and Martin Rees have said:
Let's take the most basic laws of physics. It has been calculated that if the value of even one of the fundamental constants--the speed of light or the mass of an electron for instance-- had been to the slightest degree different, then no planet capable of permitting the evolution of the human life could have formed.

Speaking of constants. Max Planck said, "There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other. Religion and natural science are fighting a joint battle in an incessant, never relaxing crusade against skepticism and against dogmatism, against unbelief and supersition ..[and therefore] 'On to God'. Dictionary of Scientific Biography.


The problems of how meaningful or semantic information can emerge spontaneously from a collection of mindless molecules subject to blind and purposeless forces, presents a deep conceptual challenge. ~ Paul Davies, "The origin of Life II: how did it begin.

No pseudo-scientific columns can ever erase the design, the purpose, the intelligence with which Aristotle's First Cause, or God, has created this universe.

AlboSooner
1/3/2012, 08:18 PM
As a believer in God, I admire the faith of those who believe that nothing can create something, and that out of mindless matter, purpose, and metaphysical truths can arise. I just don't have that kind of faith.

Midtowner
1/3/2012, 09:04 PM
The requirement of a "first mover" in Aristotle's logic requires that time is linear. Most of your math and physics eggheads will tell you that's not the case.

IBleedCrimson
1/3/2012, 09:53 PM
In addition, Leslie and Rees argument is: It so incredibly complicated that I can't understand...therefore God. Its the same terrible thought process people who believe in aliens use: The pyramids are so complicated that I can't understand...therefore aliens. Just because YOU can't explain it, doesn't mean there isnt an explanation.

Planck's: Planck's God was Einstein's God. It wasn't an actual old white guy with a beard tallying falling sparrows. God to him was the universe, the energy that is everything. If you buy into that then pray to the Law of Gravity, not a crucifix.

Davies': Same as Leslie and Rees. I don't understand, therefore there is a God. Time and time again history has shown this argument as flawed. Aztecs couldn't understand why the sun rose in the morning, therefore the Sun was a God. Greeks couldn't understand why there was a tide, therefore there was a God for that. We can't fully grasp the immense complexity of the universe, therefore God.

Again, if you have faith that is completely fine! But it is illogical.

AlboSooner
1/3/2012, 10:06 PM
I have no doubt that no evidence, and no reason will be enough for some. I often caution myself not to say anything about God without the consideration that without love any dogma can be found repulsive, regardless of its veracity.

Reason cannot rise from non-reason. To believe otherwise shows a tremendous bias, and a disregard for truth as a category. In the end, to each his own. Nobody can be debated in the kingdom of God. Only God knows the true reasons of the heart. If we preach the Gospel we do it out of love, and not out of pride. The thought that even one soul may not know the goodness of Christ, sadness me deeply.

KantoSooner
1/4/2012, 10:16 AM
Two quickies:

First, that this universe is very well suited to the life found in it is not some mystic, miraculous event. The life that arose and evolved here would, by definition, have had to be pretty well suited to this universe, or it would have failed. The cause should not be mistaken for the effect.

Second, can we leave off trying to shoehorn Aristotle into Christianity? Aristotle was a great thinker and most probably an intriguing dinner guest. He was not a Christian. God did not come to him in a dream and tell him what was up but to keep it under his hat. He was born in a society that was transitioning from pagan polytheism to a profoundly agnostic/atheistic society. Interesting to see what might have happened without the Christian explosion of the first several centuries CE. That Aristotle was not a Christian does not damage Christianity in the slightest.

Recent laboratory work indicates pretty clearly that given a basic box of elements and time, you get life. Get enough life and a lot of time, you more than likely get intelligent life. Does that statement deny God or say anything at all about who/what started the whole thing rolling? No, it does not. But it does imply that any entity who kicked that ball off either really doesn't give much of a crap about what we do minute by minute or is extremely inconsistent in the application of Its laws.

Fraggle145
1/4/2012, 12:40 PM
Reason cannot rise from non-reason. To believe otherwise shows a tremendous bias, and a disregard for truth as a category.

I dont understand what this means? Why not? What do you mean by truth?

Fraggle145
1/4/2012, 12:41 PM
Recent laboratory work indicates pretty clearly that given a basic box of elements and time, you get life. Get enough life and a lot of time, you more than likely get intelligent life. Does that statement deny God or say anything at all about who/what started the whole thing rolling? No, it does not. But it does imply that any entity who kicked that ball off either really doesn't give much of a crap about what we do minute by minute or is extremely inconsistent in the application of Its laws.

I wish more people understood this.

okie52
1/4/2012, 12:48 PM
I assume the point of the article was to address ID involvement in school. I don't have a problem with it not being taught in that environment.

However, remove the school issue from it and I agree with Albo's sentiments.

KantoSooner
1/4/2012, 02:44 PM
Don't go all Kansas on us....

okie52
1/4/2012, 03:38 PM
I have no idea what you are talking about.

KantoSooner
1/4/2012, 03:40 PM
Kansas got all excited about forcing the teaching of ID a few years back. It amused me due to the superior attitude struck by many Kansans vs. Oklahoma.

okie52
1/4/2012, 04:16 PM
Kansas does have Westboro.

Does OK have an ID requirement?

I don't care if ID is not mentioned in school.

KantoSooner
1/4/2012, 04:55 PM
Not that I'm aware of. Now that you let the cat out of the bag, though....

Midtowner
1/4/2012, 05:07 PM
Not that I'm aware of. Now that you let the cat out of the bag, though....

I believe it will soon. Fallin has had a curriculum redesign going forward for awhile now. On it are a lot of "scholars" whose agenda is getting Biblical things inserted into curricula with thinly disguised secular purposes.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
1/4/2012, 05:16 PM
Fabio was a god, but no mas! Is there a God now? Is there a void? Who is responsible for there not being a God?

IBleedCrimson
1/4/2012, 05:18 PM
Who is responsible for there not being a God?

People of color. We must persecute them.

AlboSooner
1/4/2012, 10:58 PM
Recent laboratory work indicates pretty clearly that given a basic box of elements and time, you get life. Get enough life and a lot of time, you more than likely get intelligent life. Does that statement deny God or say anything at all about who/what started the whole thing rolling? No, it does not. But it does imply that any entity who kicked that ball off either really doesn't give much of a crap about what we do minute by minute or is extremely inconsistent in the application of Its laws.

What recent laboratory has demonstrated that you can get something from nothing? Even if one were to assume that chemical elements just are, having not been created, what chemical process from basic elements has created a single cell?

Like I said, I really don't have this type of faith.

George Wald (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wald) said:

How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that pelicuar nexus of properties that breeds life? It had occurred to me lately--I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities-- that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality--that the stuff of which physical reality in constructed is mind-stuff. It is mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life , and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create: science, art, and technology-making creatures. [George Wald,Life and Mind in the Universe,]

AlboSooner
1/4/2012, 11:20 PM
Albert Einstein:
Every one who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with out modest powers must feel humble.

A certain famous cat owner said:
The scientific picture of the world around me is very different. It gives me a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but is ghastly silent about all that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell a word about the sensation of red and blue, bitter and sweet, feelings of delight and sorrow. It knows nothing of beauty and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. ~ Schrodinger.

Also, Aristotle's First Cause was mentioned that one can arrive at God's existence only with the aid of human reason. I don't think anybody here has the intellectual prowess to call Aristotle irrational, and his First Mover illogical.

Since I have yet to encounter anyone who rejects God on intellectual reasons, I doubt that even these quotes will change anybody's mind even one iota. In the end The Bible is right, people love sin more than they love God.

AlboSooner
1/4/2012, 11:28 PM
I assume the point of the article was to address ID involvement in school. I don't have a problem with it not being taught in that environment.

Do you have a problem with atheistic evolution being taught as fact?

Having majored in a real science, and having taken some classes in philosophy at OU, for the love of God nobody has been able to explain to me where science and religion conflict each other. The Bible says, God created the universe, and it doesn't say "how" God created it. It the job of science to find out the how, and religions job to explain the why.

IBleedCrimson
1/4/2012, 11:31 PM
What recent laboratory has demonstrated that you can get something from nothing? Even if one were to assume that chemical elements just are, having not been created, what chemical process from basic elements has created a single cell?

Like I said, I really don't have this type of faith.

Your doing it again... the terribly flawed argument that because YOU don't understand how the fabric of the cosmos came into existence, there must be a God. How did the Stonehenge rocks get to where they are? I can't comprehend it.... therefore aliens did it. Your doing the exact same thing with except substituting "aliens" with "God".

As far as taking a hodgepodge of elements and converting that to life. Basically, what we've done in labs, is take basic elements and create conditions similar to that of a young earth. Eventually, certain element combinations form that, when they bump into other elements, recreate themselves. They aren't even technically "organisms." But not every recreation is perfect, and most don't succeed. But the few that due, ALWAYS evolve into more complex versions of themselves. Eventually, elemental combinations that were a originally simply 2 molecules bound together artificially become 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. This is the first DNA. The entire reason for your existence, is because the DNA which you are created from has been successfully replicated for millenia. You are the end product of all the failed attempts at random mutation. I know that idea is frightening, and it clashes with our narcissism, but it is reasonable and is supported by experiment.

Here is the beautiful part about science vs faith. I believe what I wrote above because of empirical data. Not faith. If later empirical data changes, and shows me different evidence to explain the evolution of life, I will incorporate that into my world view. I am flexible that way. But if a book that wasn't even written before a dozen generations of people passed it orally (ever played the telephone game, where one person says a phrase into anothers ear, then that person repeats it? The phrase "I want Ice Cream" gets turned into "Ann's mother's hair is purple." Imagine that then think of the bible and multiple generations), is the code of your belief, how can you have an accurate worldview?

I'm not judging anyone of faith. But to think that faith is rational is simply not true.

IBleedCrimson
1/4/2012, 11:35 PM
Since I have yet to encounter anyone who rejects God on intellectual reasons, I doubt that even these quotes will change anybody's mind even one iota.

One cannot reject "God," but one CAN reject organized religion.

And your quotes are good. They insightful and relevant, but they are also flawed.

AlboSooner
1/4/2012, 11:36 PM
As far as taking a hodgepodge of elements and converting that to life. Basically, what we've done in labs, is take basic elements and create conditions similar to that of a young earth. Eventually, certain element combinations form that, when they bump into other elements, recreate themselves. They aren't even technically "organisms." But not every recreation is perfect, and most don't succeed. But the few that due, ALWAYS evolve into more complex versions of themselves. Eventually, elemental combinations that were a originally simply 2 molecules bound together artificially become 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. This is the first DNA. The entire reason for your existence, is because the DNA which you are created from has been successfully replicated for millenia. You are the end product of all the failed attempts at random mutation. I know that idea is frightening, and it clashes with our narcissism, but it is reasonable and is supported by experiment.
.

I have a degree in Biochem from OU. Feel free to go nerdy. Feel free to draw reactions, with election arrows and all.

The "experiment" you have in mind has been long debunked. It would be funny, if you weren't so serious about these stuff you post. Elements "bumping" into each other, lol. Elements recreate themselves? LOL.

IBleedCrimson
1/4/2012, 11:39 PM
I have a degree in Biochem from OU. Feel free to go nerdy. Feel free to draw reactions, with election arrows and all.

The "experiment" you have in mind has been long debunked. It would be funny, if you weren't so serious about these stuff you post. Elements "bumping" into each other, lol. Elements recreate themselves? LOL.

I do not have a relevant degree. You sir, win. And I'm not being facetious.

EDIT: Is this the experiment. If this is false I would truly appreciate the knowledge, because I base a lot of my opinions on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

okie52
1/4/2012, 11:40 PM
Do you have a problem with atheistic evolution being taught as fact?

Having majored in a real science, and having taken some classes in philosophy at OU, for the love of God nobody has been able to explain to me where science and religion conflict each other. The Bible says, God created the universe, and it doesn't say "how" God created it. It the job of science to find out the how, and religions job to explain the why.

No I don't have a problem with evolution being taught in school. And I don't see where belief in evolution is a contradiction to believing in God.

AlboSooner
1/4/2012, 11:42 PM
One cannot reject "God," but one CAN reject organized religion.

Agree with this.

Fraggle145
1/5/2012, 02:00 AM
I do not have a relevant degree. You sir, win. And I'm not being facetious.

EDIT: Is this the experiment. If this is false I would truly appreciate the knowledge, because I base a lot of my opinions on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

I have a relevant degree and I dont know of it being debunked.

Fraggle145
1/5/2012, 02:01 AM
One cannot reject "God," but one CAN reject organized religion.

Hence, why god by definition is not scientific.

KantoSooner
1/5/2012, 10:30 AM
Let's try Occam's Razor. (Occam, being, ironically, a churchman). In essence the principle holds that unless you can find truly convincing evidence to the contrary, the simplest, most straight forward explanation is likely the true one. If it walks, quacks and flies like a duck, it is likely a duck.

Now, we are relatively certain that the universe exists. (I'll leave the fields of epistomology to generations of constipated Germans past, present and future; for some reason it appeals to something in their nature. Immanuel Kant, I'm looking at you, bubba.) How did it arise? Well, we really don't know; but theoretical physicists are getting closer to defining the moment it happened. While this begs the question of what happened before that, it is knowledge; and anyone who ever watched 'Animal House' knows that "Knowledge Is Good". But we digress.
What is striking is that, in the combined observation of thousands of gifted scholars, there has never been a single instance in which 'God' was either observed, implied or required to explain what had been observed. (I omit the 'observations' of illiterate goatherds inhabiting late bronze-age Palestine. All manner of wild *** **** happened to them. Not, of course that any of it was ever seen again, but still.)
Now, we return to Brother Occam. We might not know how it all started, but so far we've steadily worked back towards that goal using natural laws of physics and chemistry. No spontaneous generation or fairies required. If we, at this point, posit the necessity of a
'God', then it is up to those positing such an entity to explain why a 'God' is necessary. The burden of proof lies upon he making the extraordinary assertion. And, as is true in cases of extraordinary assertions, the proof, too, needs to be extraordinary.

SoonerLaw09
1/5/2012, 10:49 AM
I do not have a relevant degree. You sir, win. And I'm not being facetious.

EDIT: Is this the experiment. If this is false I would truly appreciate the knowledge, because I base a lot of my opinions on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

Here you go: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v18/n2/abiogenesis

The scientific fact is, that 1) the experiment was based on several assumptions about the nature of early Earth that have not been proven; 2) the experiment itself was *intelligently designed* to produce intended results, therefore it cannot be used to prove random events; and 3) it didn't really obtain the results intended.

SoonerLaw09
1/5/2012, 10:51 AM
Hence, why god by definition is not scientific.

Science is possible because of God. Because we know that there is order to the universe, and science tells us that order is not caused by randomness.

SoonerLaw09
1/5/2012, 10:54 AM
One cannot reject "God," but one CAN reject organized religion.

And your quotes are good. They insightful and relevant, but they are also flawed.

If you reject so-called "organized religion", what do you replace the church with? If you just say "I believe the Bible is true", very well. It tells you as a believer to associate yourself with a local body of believers for corporate worship and discipleship. If you say "I'll worship God in my own way", then your "own way" could be outside of what God commands. You would have no way of knowing. Then you would be no better than a pagan.

Fraggle145
1/5/2012, 11:11 AM
Hence, why god by definition is not scientific.

Science is possible because of God. Because we know that there is order to the universe, and science tells us that order is not caused by randomness.

In a closed system. We are not in a closed system. So I still don't get where the assumption that order can't come from randomness comes from.

Fraggle145
1/5/2012, 11:20 AM
Here you go: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v18/n2/abiogenesis

The scientific fact is, that 1) the experiment was based on several assumptions about the nature of early Earth that have not been proven; 2) the experiment itself was *intelligently designed* to produce intended results, therefore it cannot be used to prove random events; and 3) it didn't really obtain the results intended.

This is an opinion website. Hardly a scientific dissection and debunking. Also it's based on the assumption that you can prove anything. How can anyone prove exactly what conditions were in early earth? You can't. You can get pretty close to figuring them out like in the experiment though. Every experiment is designed to test a hypothesis. It could just as easily produced other results. Like for example these amino acid like compounds dont form under conditions that are likely similar to early earth. An experiment isn't designed to produce any set of intended results. That would be bad science.

SoonerLaw09
1/5/2012, 12:18 PM
In a closed system. We are not in a closed system. So I still don't get where the assumption that order can't come from randomness comes from.

Where did you get the idea that the universe is not a closed system?

SoonerLaw09
1/5/2012, 12:21 PM
This is an opinion website. Hardly a scientific dissection and debunking. Also it's based on the assumption that you can prove anything. How can anyone prove exactly what conditions were in early earth? You can't. You can get pretty close to figuring them out like in the experiment though. Every experiment is designed to test a hypothesis. It could just as easily produced other results. Like for example these amino acid like compounds dont form under conditions that are likely similar to early earth. An experiment isn't designed to produce any set of intended results. That would be bad science.

So what you're saying is that the experiment was basically meaningless, because nobody can scientifically prove the conditions on earth at the moment of its creation. I agree. So we're left with two options: the atheist scientist take it on faith that nothing + nobody = everything. The Christian says otherwise. Which is more rational, given our knowledge to date of how the universe works?

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
1/5/2012, 02:27 PM
Where did you get the idea that the universe is not a closed system?"universe" is "everything" by definition. What things are outside of...everything. jaja

Fraggle145
1/5/2012, 03:16 PM
So what you're saying is that the experiment was basically meaningless, because nobody can scientifically prove the conditions on earth at the moment of its creation. I agree. So we're left with two options: the atheist scientist take it on faith that nothing + nobody = everything. The Christian says otherwise. Which is more rational, given our knowledge to date of how the universe works?

No that isnt what I am saying. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. I'm saying it is our best estimate that we currently have available. When we have a better estimate I'm sure someone will try a similar experiment. Hence, it isnt meaningless and is a actually a really nice experiment.

And I would say with what we know about the universe, the first option is looking pretty convincing to me.

Fraggle145
1/5/2012, 03:18 PM
Where did you get the idea that the universe is not a closed system?

I'm thinking along these lines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

Ask Ike he can tell you about it better than I can.

Dale Ellis
1/5/2012, 03:29 PM
I have no doubt that no evidence, and no reason will be enough for some. I often caution myself not to say anything about God without the consideration that without love any dogma can be found repulsive, regardless of its veracity.

Reason cannot rise from non-reason. To believe otherwise shows a tremendous bias, and a disregard for truth as a category. In the end, to each his own. Nobody can be debated in the kingdom of God. Only God knows the true reasons of the heart. If we preach the Gospel we do it out of love, and not out of pride. The thought that even one soul may not know the goodness of Christ, sadness me deeply.

The irony in all of this is, those who would so quickly dismiss what can not be proven in a laboratory, or in a mathematical equation will turn around and be so willing to accept flawed, junk science so long as it promotes their political agenda.

Everyone has faith, some just aren't capable of placing that faith in something that isn't slapping them in the face. We have faith when we get on an airplane, that it will take us safely to our destination. I know of no one who would climb on an airliner thinking it was going to crash.

KantoSooner
1/5/2012, 04:41 PM
A child or imbecile has 'faith' that the airplane will fly.

An adult has a) a passing understanding of aerodynamics ('lift', 'propulsion') and, b) the example of the last century of aviation to make the educated conclusion that, in all liklihood, they'll get where they're going safely.

Caboose
1/5/2012, 08:39 PM
Science is possible because of God. Because we know that there is order to the universe, and science tells us that order is not caused by randomness.

We have pockets of temporary order within seas of randomness in the universe, not order. Temporary pockets of order can and do appear from randomness, and it is demonstrable.

MR2-Sooner86
1/6/2012, 09:50 AM
The fact that this is still being debated shows why our science scores are so low.

Intelligent Design is Creationism wrapped up in a nice little name to throw you off guard. I'll give the Religious Right props, they're sneaky little f*ckers.

Now they're trying to say, "OH! We don't mean THAT silly stuff. What we mean is to teach that some higher power was in control the entire time."

Yeah, that's called Deism, which goes directly against your Theistic religion.

"Well, evolution is just some liberal plot to take religion out of young people lives and turn them all into atheist!"

I didn't need a science book to turn into an atheist. I just read the Bible.

SoonerLaw09
1/6/2012, 01:10 PM
I'm thinking along these lines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

Ask Ike he can tell you about it better than I can.

The phenomena discussed in that article could just as well be evidence of continuing creation, which may stop at some point. The science cannot rule that out. For instance, I can say (based on Scripture, BTW) that God is constantly putting energy into the universe, and if He ever stopped, it would wind down. So the system is only open as long as God upholds it.

If you're saying that my use of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics is invalid to prove Creation, then are you saying that in an "open system", order can arise from randomness? Has this ever been observed?

Also, according to the end of this article, the universe may be an "isolated system", which is more restrictive than a closed system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_system

So it looks like the jury is still out on the structure of the universe.

SoonerLaw09
1/6/2012, 01:11 PM
We have pockets of temporary order within seas of randomness in the universe, not order. Temporary pockets of order can and do appear from randomness, and it is demonstrable.

Umm, I don't think current science would agree with you. Better read that article that Fraggle posted.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
1/6/2012, 01:17 PM
"So it looks like the jury is still out on the structure of the universe."-SoonerLaw09

You MIGHT say that. haha




This has turned out to be a FABULOUS political thread. haha

SoonerLaw09
1/6/2012, 01:18 PM
The fact that this is still being debated shows why our science scores are so low.

Intelligent Design is Creationism wrapped up in a nice little name to throw you off guard. I'll give the Religious Right props, they're sneaky little f*ckers.

Now they're trying to say, "OH! We don't mean THAT silly stuff. What we mean is to teach that some higher power was in control the entire time."

Yeah, that's called Deism, which goes directly against your Theistic religion.

"Well, evolution is just some liberal plot to take religion out of young people lives and turn them all into atheist!"

I didn't need a science book to turn into an atheist. I just read the Bible.

It astounds me how much hate speech you post on this forum. Well, at least as an atheist, you're living consistently with your beliefs, I'll give you that. Most aren't, you know.

And BTW the IDers who go the deistic route bug me too. However, most of them are scientists who have years and years of naturalism pounded into them, so it's tougher for them to get around to a right answer. But even if they are halfway there, a lot of their arguments are useful, if nothing else than to show the scientific establishment that they may, after all, have been drinking the Kool-aid.

And I don't believe in government schools, but as long as my tax dollars go to pay for them, I believe I deserve some say in what's taught in them. If they want to give me a voucher to pay for my son's tuition, I'll happily be quiet about it. It would still make me sad, but I would no longer have a dog in the hunt.

Fraggle145
1/6/2012, 02:54 PM
The phenomena discussed in that article could just as well be evidence of continuing creation, which may stop at some point. The science cannot rule that out. For instance, I can say (based on Scripture, BTW) that God is constantly putting energy into the universe, and if He ever stopped, it would wind down. So the system is only open as long as God upholds it.

If you're saying that my use of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics is invalid to prove Creation, then are you saying that in an "open system", order can arise from randomness? Has this ever been observed?

Also, according to the end of this article, the universe may be an "isolated system", which is more restrictive than a closed system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_system

So it looks like the jury is still out on the structure of the universe.

So you are saying you are is back to the its too much for us to ever understand, i.e., the argument of irreducible complexity, must be god argument? An argument that is unfalsifiable. Great.

Theskipster
1/6/2012, 05:11 PM
What recent laboratory has demonstrated that you can get something from nothing? [George Wald,Life and Mind in the Universe,]

Of course you can. God is a something, right? So who created God?

Also. the big bang theory DOES NOT say that something came from nothing.

SoonerLaw09
1/6/2012, 05:20 PM
Of course you can. God is a something, right? So who created God?

Also. the big bang theory DOES NOT say that something came from nothing.

1. Nobody
2. Yes it does. What created the singularity?

Not trying to be facetious, but making a point that your own arguments can be used against you. Each of us posits "something from nothing"; I have a reason, you don't. Or, each of us posits something eternal; for me, it's God, for you, it's the universe. How is an enternal universe any more likely than an eternal God? Besides, the existence of linear time itself disproves the eternality of the universe.

SoonerLaw09
1/6/2012, 05:21 PM
So you are saying you are is back to the its too much for us to ever understand, i.e., the argument of irreducible complexity, must be god argument? An argument that is unfalsifiable. Great.

Just because it's unfalsifiable doesn't mean it's not true. I think that's what the evolutionists say.

Theskipster
1/6/2012, 05:36 PM
What recent laboratory has demonstrated that you can get something from nothing? [George Wald,Life and Mind in the Universe,]

Of course you can. God is a something, right? So who created God?

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
1/6/2012, 06:13 PM
Of course you can(get something from nothing). God is a something, right? So who created God?EASY!: The extra-universal anti-God(or, simply...nothing). Soooo easy, since THERE IS NO GOD!

Midtowner
1/6/2012, 06:17 PM
1. Nobody
2. Yes it does. What created the singularity?

Not trying to be facetious, but making a point that your own arguments can be used against you. Each of us posits "something from nothing"; I have a reason, you don't. Or, each of us posits something eternal; for me, it's God, for you, it's the universe. How is an enternal universe any more likely than an eternal God? Besides, the existence of linear time itself disproves the eternality of the universe.

Who says time is linear?

That's provable?

MR2-Sooner86
1/6/2012, 08:32 PM
It astounds me how much hate speech you post on this forum. Well, at least as an atheist, you're living consistently with your beliefs, I'll give you that. Most aren't, you know.

Oh I'm being really, really civil. Compared to what Christians have said to me in the past, I'm being nice. After a while of trying to be nice, it's game on.

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn43/heffash/atheists.jpg

bigfatjerk
1/6/2012, 09:16 PM
I would still like for a Christian to give the exact passage in the Bible that says the exact age of the earth.

AlboSooner
1/7/2012, 11:50 AM
I would still like for a Christian to give the exact passage in the Bible that says the exact age of the earth.

It doesn't. The Bible is not a scientific book. It is a book of revelation of God. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. "

This is simply a declaration that God created the Universe, which is an idea supported by the Big Bang theory. Everything that has a beginning must have a Creator.

There are also believers who think that God set in motion evolution, which stills makes God the creator. I don't think God is lessened if He were the author of such feat, but I don't think the evidence points that way. There is no fossil evidence prior to the Cambrian explosion that shows creatures gradually changing from one from to the other.

There is really no escape from the existence of God. One may reject claims of organized religion, but God's existence is pretty much a forgone conclusion. The question becomes:after creating everything, has God spoken? If he spake, what kind of speech, what kind of reason, what kind of faith would God try to reveal to humanity. It is my belief that God would reveal himself in the fashion the Bible reveals him.

Out of all the religions of the world, Christianity is the one to beat.

AlboSooner
1/7/2012, 11:57 AM
Let's try Occam's Razor. (Occam, being, ironically, a churchman). In essence the principle holds that unless you can find truly convincing evidence to the contrary, the simplest, most straight forward explanation is likely the true one. If it walks, quacks and flies like a duck, it is likely a duck.

Now, we are relatively certain that the universe exists. (I'll leave the fields of epistomology to generations of constipated Germans past, present and future; for some reason it appeals to something in their nature. Immanuel Kant, I'm looking at you, bubba.) How did it arise? Well, we really don't know; but theoretical physicists are getting closer to defining the moment it happened. While this begs the question of what happened before that, it is knowledge; and anyone who ever watched 'Animal House' knows that "Knowledge Is Good". But we digress.
What is striking is that, in the combined observation of thousands of gifted scholars, there has never been a single instance in which 'God' was either observed, implied or required to explain what had been observed. (I omit the 'observations' of illiterate goatherds inhabiting late bronze-age Palestine. All manner of wild *** **** happened to them. Not, of course that any of it was ever seen again, but still.)
Now, we return to Brother Occam. We might not know how it all started, but so far we've steadily worked back towards that goal using natural laws of physics and chemistry. No spontaneous generation or fairies required. If we, at this point, posit the necessity of a
'God', then it is up to those positing such an entity to explain why a 'God' is necessary. The burden of proof lies upon he making the extraordinary assertion. And, as is true in cases of extraordinary assertions, the proof, too, needs to be extraordinary.


The burden of proof lies on the atheist. It is an extraordinary claim to reject God. In order to deny that a omnipotent, omniscient being exists, one must be that being. But the atheist is not. Hence the contradiction, and hence why many people moved from atheism to agnosticism. In agnosticism all you have to do is to prove that you don't know. In the west we have adopted the Latin version of the word: ignoramus, ignorant.

I've never seen a group of ignorant people, make claims about things they don't claim to know, with such pretension. At least the atheists had intellectual honesty and courage.

Caboose
1/7/2012, 12:01 PM
The burden of proof lies on the atheist. It is an extraordinary claim to reject God. In order to deny that a omnipotent, omniscient being exists, one must be that being. But the atheist is not. Hence the contradiction, and hence why many people moved from atheism to agnosticism. In agnosticism all you have to do is to prove that you don't know. In the west we have adopted the Latin version of the word: ignoramus, ignorant.

I've never seen a group of ignorant people, make claims about things they don't claim to know, with such pretension. At least the atheists had intellectual honesty and courage.

You have that backwards bro. Claiming you know there is a God, in particular a specific God, is the extraordinary claim. Speaking of intellectual honesty, get some.

Caboose
1/7/2012, 12:02 PM
Oh I'm being really, really civil. Compared to what Christians have said to me in the past, I'm being nice. After a while of trying to be nice, it's game on.

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn43/heffash/atheists.jpg

You are way too hateful about this topic.
This is coming from a fierce agnostic.

AlboSooner
1/7/2012, 12:07 PM
You have that backwards bro. Claiming you know there is a God, in particular a specific God, is the extraordinary claim. Speaking of intellectual honesty, get some.

It is not an extraordinary claim. Aristotle arrived at it by gazing at the sky 2500 years ago. Now we are going into area of ad-hominem, and I am in no mood for mud-slinging. Not only do you lose at lot of ground doing that, but you also get your hands dirty.


Ps: It violates the law of non-contradiction to say that I know that things can't be known.

Theskipster
1/7/2012, 02:25 PM
It is not an extraordinary claim. Aristotle arrived at it by gazing at the sky 2500 years ago. Now we are going into area of ad-hominem, and I am in no mood for mud-slinging. Not only do you lose at lot of ground doing that, but you also get your hands dirty.

Aristotle did not believe in the Christian God. He believed in a God like something, but one who did not create the universe or even knew humans existed. His God was not one to be worshiped in any way shape or form. So you saying that you know the specific and correct God is still an extraordinary claim, regardless of Aristotle's ideas.



Ps: It violates the law of non-contradiction to say that I know that things can't be known.

How do you know a specific and definable God? There are a lot of people who believe in Xenu with the same amount of evidence you have for your belief. So with your logic, that they know that is proof that Xenu exists because of the law of non-condradiction?

AlboSooner
1/8/2012, 01:25 PM
Nobody here claimed that Aristotle believed in the personal God revealed in the Bible. Nobody claimed that. To object to something not uttered seems ridiculous to me.

Aristotle was brought up to show that reason alone can conclude that an Un-Moved mover, a First Being, exists. Aristotle set the philosophical foundation that God's existence is a-priori. A being that itself is not moved but sets in motion the universe. That type of description for God, is found in the early Biblical teaching, around the time, or even before the time of Aristotle. This rejects the claim that faith in God is illogical, when one can arrive at God 2500 years ago just by reason alone.

I think this is easy stuff to understand. I really don't see why anybody would get confused.

The Bible says this:

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Romans 1

Paul is absolutely right.

Fraggle145
1/8/2012, 02:56 PM
This is simply a declaration that God created the Universe, which is an idea supported by the Big Bang theory. Everything that has a beginning must have a Creator.

There are also believers who think that God set in motion evolution, which stills makes God the creator.


2 things... 1) It isnt "supported" by the big bang theory. It simply doesnt conflict with the big bang theory. 2) Evolution really has nothing to do with what caused life to start, so that solution is plausible. I wish more people understood that.

StoopTroup
1/8/2012, 04:10 PM
Of course you can. God is a something, right? So who created God?

Also. the big bang theory DOES NOT say that something came from nothing.

I can probably sell as many Big Bang Trinkets as God Trinkets even if I set both shops up next to each other. Thing is....I believe in God and I believe those Big Bang Trinkets are the real snake oil. The Bible wasn't written yesterday and it indeed warns me of false profits as well as false ideals. The Big Bang Theory sure has helped the Sci-Fi Movie and Book Industry.

It's good that folks read a little fantasy from time to time to get their minds off of the horrible things of this World....but the reality is...Our World is a very difficult place and talking and listening and even praying with each other was always made the World a much better place than going to War with each other. The Big Bang Theory leaves most of it's believers thinking it's better to fight for what you can get out of life today (The Survival of the fittest) than pray against fighting for nothing.

Theskipster
1/8/2012, 10:09 PM
Really, praying made the world a better place than going to war? Better reread your bible. Like when God commanded the Israelites to kill every man woman and child of the Hittites unless a woman was a likely virgin (read very young girl).

The big bang theory isn't some fiction that destroys innate morality. It is a very useful idea about what happened 14 billion years ago based on observable evidence.

But you are only doing what Christians have always done. Deny science that may go against the current ideas of the faith. Then when the science becomes unavoidable because of the evidence, change the beliefs to match science.

Just like Martin Luther on Copernicus:

"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."

And yet no one today believes the sun revolves around the earth.

StoopTroup
1/8/2012, 10:28 PM
Really, praying made the world a better place than going to war? Better reread your bible.

So did you stop at the Old Testament?

You also put words in folks mouths. Not every Christian denies Science. A good number of Scientists believe that to deny either is a mistake. That's where I believe God gave us a brain so that we could spent our life praying and contemplating. Yeah he even gives us the ability to decide if War is the only option if the folks that are trying to harm our way of life attack us and try to wipe us off the face of the Earth. I believe that's possibly where the apocalypse might play a part in the end of that Bible you were telling me about. You know...The Book of Revelation?

Jacie
1/10/2012, 09:26 PM
Armageddon countdown, 11 months and 10 days, right? I mean the Mayans, who I don't believe are mentioned in the Bible, made this calender that ends on 12/12/21 and that can only mean one thing:

We're all doomed.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
1/11/2012, 02:03 AM
Armageddon countdown, 11 months and 10 days, right? I mean the Mayans, who I don't believe are mentioned in the Bible, made this calender that ends on 12/12/21 and that can only mean one thing:

We're all doomed.HA! I'm taking it with me, 'cause I can use it, OVER THERE

StoopTroup
1/11/2012, 02:10 AM
Armageddon countdown, 11 months and 10 days, right? I mean the Mayans, who I don't believe are mentioned in the Bible, made this calender that ends on 12/12/21 and that can only mean one thing:

We're all doomed.

Not if you are a Christian....and even some of the Atheists might get a pass as God gave us a sense of humor so we'll get to see the look on the faces of some that said it didn't exist.

Ike
1/11/2012, 11:28 AM
Where did you get the idea that the universe is not a closed system? In a closed system, a *global* ordering won't arise from chaos. Meaning that the entire system won't order itself randomly. (Entropy increases over time). If one wants to think of the universe as a closed system, then you must consider the order of the entire universe. There is nothing in the laws of thermodynamics that prevents localized order from arising out of chaos. Entropy can decrease in one area so long as it increases by more in another. Perfectly legal. Just because we may perceive some order here on earth, we can't use it to somehow disprove that we sprung up as a result of random processes, because what we observe is very much a local ordering. We have no information indicating that the entire rest of the universe is also so ordered. If we did, THEN we might be able to disprove the notion that we sprung up as a result of random processes.

Midtowner
1/11/2012, 01:12 PM
In a closed system, a *global* ordering won't arise from chaos. Meaning that the entire system won't order itself randomly. (Entropy increases over time). If one wants to think of the universe as a closed system, then you must consider the order of the entire universe. There is nothing in the laws of thermodynamics that prevents localized order from arising out of chaos. Entropy can decrease in one area so long as it increases by more in another. Perfectly legal. Just because we may perceive some order here on earth, we can't use it to somehow disprove that we sprung up as a result of random processes, because what we observe is very much a local ordering. We have no information indicating that the entire rest of the universe is also so ordered. If we did, THEN we might be able to disprove the notion that we sprung up as a result of random processes.

One theory (an ordered system) is scientifically plausible according to everything we now know.

There isn't a shred of scientific data to support ID.

LiveLaughLove
1/14/2012, 05:16 PM
Believing in God is totally logical. Believing in the Christian God is completely logical. You wont, but you should read Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. He was an extremely smart avowed atheist, that, through logical means, came to believe in God and then was led to the God of the Bible. It was the ONLY logical conclusion.

I never had a Damascus road conversion. I came to Christ through reason and logic. I was an astro-physics major that wanted to find alien life. The more I studied the universe, the more I came to comprehend the intelligence of it's design among other things. I won't bore anyone with all of it, and it wouldnt change your mind anyway.

When someone can tell me where the very first atom came from, outside of an intelligent creator, then I will listen to them. Until then, the logical conclusion is that something or someone created it. It's really that simple. (Those early earth experiments arent worth the paper they are printed on. The assumptions they have to make, make them proposterous to all except those that WANT it to be true.)

I don't get bogged down in evolution, or scientific studies that supposedly prove this or that, when they really dont. For me I keep it simple. I go back all the way in time, to that single atom. Where did it come from?

No one can answer that. So to all of you condescending non-believers, believe in your men of science. I am very happy to KNOW personally the God of the Bible and his Son.

KantoSooner
1/16/2012, 10:00 AM
Who created god?

Your supposed answer simply kicks the can down the road.

JohnnyMack
1/16/2012, 11:12 AM
Intelligent Design is an attempt by a specific religious group, Christians, to attempt and put their line of reasoning on the same plane as science. As if that particular religion should simply be accepted as some sort of canon. Religion and science aren't compatible. Any religion should be measured against other religions, those that came before it, those that arose alongside it and those that have manifested themselves afterwards. When you look at a religion like Christianity and see how it pilfered ideas from existing religions in the region and worked tirelessly at stomping out competing religions you quickly see it's no better than any other myth that has existed on this earth over the past millenia. To assert that it should compete on the same playing field as science is, at least to me, laughable.

Midtowner
1/16/2012, 12:18 PM
Believing in God is totally logical. Believing in the Christian God is completely logical. You wont, but you should read Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. He was an extremely smart avowed atheist, that, through logical means, came to believe in God and then was led to the God of the Bible. It was the ONLY logical conclusion.

I never had a Damascus road conversion. I came to Christ through reason and logic. I was an astro-physics major that wanted to find alien life. The more I studied the universe, the more I came to comprehend the intelligence of it's design among other things. I won't bore anyone with all of it, and it wouldnt change your mind anyway.

When someone can tell me where the very first atom came from, outside of an intelligent creator, then I will listen to them. Until then, the logical conclusion is that something or someone created it. It's really that simple. (Those early earth experiments arent worth the paper they are printed on. The assumptions they have to make, make them proposterous to all except those that WANT it to be true.)

I don't get bogged down in evolution, or scientific studies that supposedly prove this or that, when they really dont. For me I keep it simple. I go back all the way in time, to that single atom. Where did it come from?

No one can answer that. So to all of you condescending non-believers, believe in your men of science. I am very happy to KNOW personally the God of the Bible and his Son.

There's a developing area of quantum mechanics which actually has hypothesized that nothing actually is something and that something is created from nothing all of the time and that everything around us actually did come from nothing at some point and that even the laws of physics came into being by mere chance. CS Lewis was playing around with the logic of Aristotle and Acquinas, the same folks who accepted a terracentric solar system and the concept that there were only four elements.

You have to leave room to adjust your world view as humanity's world view becomes more informed.

jkjsooner
1/18/2012, 04:11 PM
Science is possible because of God. Because we know that there is order to the universe, and science tells us that order is not caused by randomness.

This statement is entirely untrue and a misrepresentation of the second law of thermodynamics.

Let's do a experiment. Let's release steam into the arctic. That steam will lose energy and will form ice crystals - a much more ordered form.

If you take the ice crystals and surrounding environment as a closed sytem, order did in fact arise from randomness. However, with the release of energy the entropy of the entire system (disorder) also increased.

Are you saying that God took the H and O atoms and arranged them in a orderly fashion?

jkjsooner
1/18/2012, 04:21 PM
Of course you can. God is a something, right? So who created God?

Also. the big bang theory DOES NOT say that something came from nothing.

Actually, the Big Bang Theory (other than being a great show) does not attempt to make any sort of assumption about how the universe came to be.

The Big Bang Theory simply takes data about particles and the universe and dates everything to something they termed a Big Bang. It does nothing more than that.

The first people who tried to imply that the Big Bang was more than that were in fact religious folks who wanted to discredit the theory.

jkjsooner
1/18/2012, 04:48 PM
Here you go: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v18/n2/abiogenesis

The scientific fact is, that 1) the experiment was based on several assumptions about the nature of early Earth that have not been proven; 2) the experiment itself was *intelligently designed* to produce intended results, therefore it cannot be used to prove random events; and 3) it didn't really obtain the results intended.

These criticisms are missplaced.

Nowhere did anyone suggest to know exactly how complex molecules arrived on earth. The experiment simply showed that these molecules can occur naturally under unremarkable conditions.

The "intelligently designed" comment is absurd. All experiments are intelligently designed. This seems to be a no-win catch-all criticism which would invalidate any research in the area.

By your "intelligently designed" comment you imply that the experiment was too complex to be extended to some natural phenomena. The experiment was designed to be just the opposite. It was designed to match conditions that are, to our knowledge, probable in nature.


Some have suggested that recent research shows that that the early Earth conditions differed from those reproduced from this experiment. However, the remarkable thing is that this experiment showed the plausibility that complex organic molecules could arise from wholly natural conditions - and others have done so under differing conditions.

SoonerAtKU
1/25/2012, 04:57 PM
Actually, the Big Bang Theory (other than being a great show) does not attempt to make any sort of assumption about how the universe came to be.

The Big Bang Theory simply takes data about particles and the universe and dates everything to something they termed a Big Bang. It does nothing more than that.

The first people who tried to imply that the Big Bang was more than that were in fact religious folks who wanted to discredit the theory.

Another common misconception is to equate the Big Bang to the "beginning of the universe". There's no evidence, nor any hypothesis that suggests this. This is merely a proposed singularity at which, after and possibly before, the laws of physics appear to operate as expected. The admission is implicit that any models of behavior would necessarily break down at the point of the singularity, so no measurable data can be gathered and no predictions can be made. That is, unless a new model is developed that takes into account some version of non-linear time that allows us to look back to "before" the singularity.

We're obviously not quite there yet.

jkjsooner
2/3/2012, 11:53 AM
"universe" is "everything" by definition. What things are outside of...everything. jaja

I just want to point this out since I didn't the first time I read this.

Rush thinks he's so smart with his sarcastic comments but as usual proves he doesn't have the faintest idea what he's talking about.

Rush, I know this is over your head but let me explain. Entropy in isolated areas can decrease. If you placed a hot object in thermal contact with a cold object the entropy of the hot object (dq/T) will decrease. The overall entropy will increase however.

In this way the hot object is not an isolated system. Your sarcastic remark about the universe just shows your ignorance.

I'll give SoonerLaw09 a pass. He's attempting to have an intelligent conversation and we can discuss how the entropy in the universe is increasing even if it is decreasing locally. Rush on the other hand doesn't even attempt to understand things. He's just throws out sarcastic remarks that prove his ignorance.

LiveLaughLove
2/3/2012, 12:20 PM
I just want to point this out since I didn't the first time I read this.

Rush thinks he's so smart with his sarcastic comments but as usual proves he doesn't have the faintest idea what he's talking about.

Rush, I know this is over your head but let me explain. Entropy in isolated areas can decrease. If you placed a hot object in thermal contact with a cold object the entropy of the hot object (dq/T) will decrease. The overall entropy will increase however.

In this way the hot object is not an isolated system. Your sarcastic remark about the universe just shows your ignorance.

I'll give SoonerLaw09 a pass. He's attempting to have an intelligent conversation and we can discuss how the entropy in the universe is increasing even if it is decreasing locally. Rush on the other hand doesn't even attempt to understand things. He's just throws out sarcastic remarks that prove his ignorance.

ict, is that you? Missed ya dude. Haven't heard ignorant/ignorance in awhile.

You are trying to dazzle with your knowledge. You want to argue how the forest got to be the forest. I and others say, here is the seed that started the forest. How did it get there?

You say, either a) it was always there, or b) the matter that created the seed was always there we just couldn't see it.

Fine. How did that hidden matter get there? Always is a long time.

In infinity, whatever caused that seed to start growing would have happened infinite times. There would be forests overlapping forests overlapping forest everywhere an infinite amount of times in the infinity of time.

The truth is, and the crux of the matter, no one can comprehend the beginning of creation. Not even your brilliant bedazzling self.

Yet, the one thing you are dogmatically sure of is there was no creator for all of creation and it should never be taught as so. Ridiculous.

You can no more be sure of that than the day of your own death. Scientists will NEVER prove God didn't start the Universe. No matter how much they want to do so.

This isn't actually about science anyway, and we all know it. Today's scientists have become the Catholic Church of the middle ages. No heresy allowed!

SoonerPride
2/3/2012, 01:18 PM
I just want to point this out since I didn't the first time I read this.

Rush thinks he's so smart with his sarcastic comments but as usual proves he doesn't have the faintest idea what he's talking about.

Rush, I know this is over your head but let me explain. Entropy in isolated areas can decrease. If you placed a hot object in thermal contact with a cold object the entropy of the hot object (dq/T) will decrease. The overall entropy will increase however.

In this way the hot object is not an isolated system. Your sarcastic remark about the universe just shows your ignorance.

I'll give SoonerLaw09 a pass. He's attempting to have an intelligent conversation and we can discuss how the entropy in the universe is increasing even if it is decreasing locally. Rush on the other hand doesn't even attempt to understand things. He's just throws out sarcastic remarks that prove his ignorance.

ict, is that you? Missed ya dude. Haven't heard ignorant/ignorance in awhile.

You are trying to dazzle with your knowledge. You want to argue how the forest got to be the forest. I and others say, here is the seed that started the forest. How did it get there?

You say, either a) it was always there, or b) the matter that created the seed was always there we just couldn't see it.

Fine. How did that hidden matter get there? Always is a long time.

In infinity, whatever caused that seed to start growing would have happened infinite times. There would be forests overlapping forests overlapping forest everywhere an infinite amount of times in the infinity of time.

The truth is, and the crux of the matter, no one can comprehend the beginning of creation. Not even your brilliant bedazzling self.

Yet, the one thing you are dogmatically sure of is there was no creator for all of creation and it should never be taught as so. Ridiculous.

You can no more be sure of that than the day of your own death. Scientists will NEVER prove God didn't start the Universe. No matter how much they want to do so.

This isn't actually about science anyway, and we all know it. Today's scientists have become the Catholic Church of the middle ages. No heresy allowed!

Nor can you prove that God exists.

Midtowner
2/3/2012, 02:02 PM
Today's scientists have become the Catholic Church of the middle ages. No heresy allowed!

Not really... Peer reviewed research into quantum physics has given rise to theories that nothing comes from something all the time. We're getting to the point to where the conclusion is that nothing actually is something and frequently produces something. Very interesting stuff. Only someone who really doesn't understand the scientific process would say something like that. Can there be general scientific consensus? Sure.. or at least until it's disproven. Will the scientific community generally scoff at folks who say things like "evolution is only a theory"? Yes. It's not because of dogma, it's because you've failed to grasp what you're saying at even a base definitional level.

Midtowner
2/3/2012, 02:04 PM
Nor can you prove that God exists.

Now hold on!

Something cannot come from nothing [actually, it can], so therefore there must be an omnipotent and omniscient benevolent sky being who created us in his image, gave his only son to atone for our sins, speaks to us through the holy spirit, will resent his son again to judge the living and the dead, will send you to hell if you're bad or gay or eat shellfish, will send you to heaven if you play by his rules and worship him, etc.

It's a logical necessity I tells ya!

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/3/2012, 02:59 PM
Lotsa words in this thread. Existence is inexplicable. It will always be a mystery. God is inexplicable.

Ike
2/3/2012, 03:37 PM
ict, is that you? Missed ya dude. Haven't heard ignorant/ignorance in awhile.

You are trying to dazzle with your knowledge. You want to argue how the forest got to be the forest. I and others say, here is the seed that started the forest. How did it get there?

You say, either a) it was always there, or b) the matter that created the seed was always there we just couldn't see it.

Fine. How did that hidden matter get there? Always is a long time.

In infinity, whatever caused that seed to start growing would have happened infinite times. There would be forests overlapping forests overlapping forest everywhere an infinite amount of times in the infinity of time.

Here's the funny thing about the big bang theory. Time and space only came into existence at the moment of the big bang. There was no such thing as 'before the big bang'. There was no space. There was no time. What was there? What does "there" even mean? Nobody knows, mainly because the concept of "before the big bang", in the sciency sense has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. There are some theories that try to address it (like a cyclical universe that expands and contracts and repeats for instance. Or a much larger universe than ours, with "hidden dimensions"). And they are no more or no less valid (in the scientific sense) as the notion that "God did it". They can't (yet) be proven, and they don't (yet) predict anything that we can observe. Actually, we *might* be able to observe hidden dimensions, if they exist. But naturally, it will be extremely expensive to do so.

LiveLaughLove
2/3/2012, 03:51 PM
Nor can you prove that God exists.

I have volumes and volumes of proof of God's existence, but none that you would ever accept. My intellect tells me that the creation of all creation was done by a creator. A very logical stance.

You would have us believe that the creation of all creation was by a fluke cosmic chaotic accident that only happened ONCE (maybe in an instant, maybe in a trillion lifetimes) in all of the infinity of time. A not very logical stance.

I am not scared to have your theory taught, but your ilk are terrified to have my theory taught. I wonder why?

You hide behind the cloak of science without one scintilla of proof of your creation theory. Just hypothesis and conjecture made by men of limited knowledge with limited understanding of something so vast.

I love science, btw. I just hate how it has become so political and religious instead of scientific.

LiveLaughLove
2/3/2012, 03:59 PM
Not really... Peer reviewed research into quantum physics has given rise to theories that nothing comes from something all the time. We're getting to the point to where the conclusion is that nothing actually is something and frequently produces something. Very interesting stuff. Only someone who really doesn't understand the scientific process would say something like that. Can there be general scientific consensus? Sure.. or at least until it's disproven. Will the scientific community generally scoff at folks who say things like "evolution is only a theory"? Yes. It's not because of dogma, it's because you've failed to grasp what you're saying at even a base definitional level.

How very condescending of you (as usual). I know the research you speak of. If nothing is something, or can become something, then something causes it to be so. So we are still at the starting point regardless of what you choose to call it.

It is very interesting stuff, but to make the leap that God had no hand in however creation occurred is quite the leap. Except that you choose to simply say it is so.

I also understand the theory of evolution but it doesn't concern me one way or another. Most of creation had occurred long before any evolutionary species existed. It doesn't answer creation since most of the cosmos isn't alive or evolving.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/3/2012, 04:01 PM
I have volumes and volumes of proof of God's existence, but none that you would ever accept. My intellect tells me that the creation of all creation was done by a creator. A very logical stance.

You would have us believe that the creation of all creation was by a fluke cosmic chaotic accident that only happened ONCE (maybe in an instant, maybe in a trillion lifetimes) in all of the infinity of time. A not very logical stance.

I am not scared to have your theory taught, but your ilk are terrified to have my theory taught. I wonder why?

You hide behind the cloak of science without one scintilla of proof of your creation theory. Just hypothesis and conjecture made by men of limited knowledge with limited understanding of something so vast.

I love science, btw. I just hate how it has become so political and religious instead of scientific.Sure. Existence can't be explained. Something from nothing. No logic applies. Call it God or whatever you want. It simply can't be explained.

SoonerPride
2/3/2012, 04:07 PM
Nor can you prove that God exists.

I have volumes and volumes of proof of God's existence, but none that you would ever accept. My intellect tells me that the creation of all creation was done by a creator. A very logical stance.

You would have us believe that the creation of all creation was by a fluke cosmic chaotic accident that only happened ONCE (maybe in an instant, maybe in a trillion lifetimes) in all of the infinity of time. A not very logical stance.

I am not scared to have your theory taught, but your ilk are terrified to have my theory taught. I wonder why?

You hide behind the cloak of science without one scintilla of proof of your creation theory. Just hypothesis and conjecture made by men of limited knowledge with limited understanding of something so vast.

I love science, btw. I just hate how it has become so political and religious instead of scientific.

Fear your theory? Not hardly.

But oppose teaching it in school? Absolutely. Why? Because it is sheer and utter nonsense.

Polytheistic or monotheistic or Flying Spaghetti Monster god systems are equally bunk.

Btw I'm still waiting for proof.

okie52
2/3/2012, 04:08 PM
Here's the funny thing about the big bang theory. Time and space only came into existence at the moment of the big bang. There was no such thing as 'before the big bang'. There was no space. There was no time. What was there? What does "there" even mean? Nobody knows, mainly because the concept of "before the big bang", in the sciency sense has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. There are some theories that try to address it (like a cyclical universe that expands and contracts and repeats for instance. Or a much larger universe than ours, with "hidden dimensions"). And they are no more or no less valid (in the scientific sense) as the notion that "God did it". They can't (yet) be proven, and they don't (yet) predict anything that we can observe. Actually, we *might* be able to observe hidden dimensions, if they exist. But naturally, it will be extremely expensive to do so.

I've been enjoying the theory of the expanding/contracting universe regarding the big bang. Not sure how time and space didn't exist prior to the initial bang since the universe was compressing prior to the initial bang. I guess that means space and time didn't exist only before the initial big bang as every restart bang would have still have had a prior history...

Ike
2/3/2012, 04:22 PM
I have volumes and volumes of proof of God's existence, but none that you would ever accept. My intellect tells me that the creation of all creation was done by a creator. A very logical stance.
This is only logical because it's all we see. The things we (by which I mean most people) see created are all created by processes that are easily understandable. But because something is logical does not mean it is real. 100 years ago, almost the whole of quantum mechanics seemed illogical (Because it is not a causal theory. It was thought at the time that all physical theories must be caual...i.e., every effect has a cause. Because of its non-causality, the disbelief of QM was famously asserted by Einstein as "I refuse to believe that God plays dice". The only problem was that every time Einstein tried to disprove QM through a reductio ad absurdum, the supposedly absurd behavior Einstein claimed was disproof of the theory instead wound up being experimentally observed. Even things that seem illogical can be real. Things that seem logical can be false. The key in determining which is which is to determine which of our assumptions are true and which are false.



You would have us believe that the creation of all creation was by a fluke cosmic chaotic accident that only happened ONCE (maybe in an instant, maybe in a trillion lifetimes) in all of the infinity of time. A not very logical stance.

Fluke cosmic chaotic accidents happen. Given enough time, anything that is possible will happen.
Furthermore, do we know time is infinite?


I am not scared to have your theory taught, but your ilk are terrified to have my theory taught. I wonder why?

I'm not scared to have your theory taught. But in no way shape or form should it be taught as science. Because it is unfalsifiable, and does not predict anything we can observe in a lab. What, for instance, does creationism have to say about the cosmic background radiation? Or the expansion of the universe?
Or perhaps the interactions of particles at the TeV scale, or even the Planck scale? In order for any of our cosmic accident theories to even attempt to explain anything, we have to also have an understanding of these other things.


You hide behind the cloak of science without one scintilla of proof of your creation theory. Just hypothesis and conjecture made by men of limited knowledge with limited understanding of something so vast.
We may not have proof, but we do have supporting evidence. Which is more than creationism has. Furthermore, since creationism doesn't predict anything, we can never have supporting evidence for it.


I love science, btw. I just hate how it has become so political and religious instead of scientific. It's always political and religious. Just ask Galileo.

Ike
2/3/2012, 04:51 PM
How very condescending of you (as usual). I know the research you speak of. If nothing is something, or can become something, then something causes it to be so. So we are still at the starting point regardless of what you choose to call it.
The bolded part is not necessarily true. Physics, at the smallest levels, is not nearly as causal as we'd like it to be.

jkjsooner
2/3/2012, 05:03 PM
Sure. Existence can't be explained. Something from nothing. No logic applies. Call it God or whatever you want. It simply can't be explained.

Damn, RLIMC, here I am busting you and then I run across this. This is a good point.

Theskipster
2/3/2012, 05:05 PM
It is very interesting stuff, but to make the leap that God had no hand in however creation occurred is quite the leap. Except that you choose to simply say it is so.


No, it is a leap to say that there must have been a start and since we don't know what that is by science, then that is proof that the universe was created by some God that is too stupid to not create the sun before creating plants. And who somehow thought that there was a body of water above the earth.

Your logic is also proof that Naba Zid-Wendé created the world.

In the beginning there was no earth, no day or night, and not even time itself. All that existed was the Kingdom of Everlasting Truth, which was ruled by the Naba Zid-Wendé. The Naba Zid-Wendé made the earth, and then they made the day and the night. To make the day a time to be busy, they made the sun, and to make the night a time of rest, they made the moon. In doing so, they made time itself.

At first the earth was covered with fire, but the Naba Zid-Wendé blew on the earth to cool the fire. They ordered the fire to live inside the earth, so that the surface would be safe for the humans they were going to make. Only very resentfully did the fire go into the earth.

First the Naba Zid-Wendé made a chameleon, to see if the earth's outer crust would hold it up. When the crust held it up, the Naba Zid-Wendé made snakes to crawl on the earth, to see if it was cool enough to live on. When the snakes did not complain about their bellies, the Naba Zid-Wendé made the large animals, the elephant, the rhinoceros, and the buffalo. The crust was strong enough to hold up even them, and so the crust was solid and cool.

Finally the Naba Zid-Wendé were ready to create humans. They made them very black, because black is a strong color, and to make them different from the sun, which is red, and from the moon, which is white. The Naba Zid-Wendé used their breath to blow a soul into the humans that they had made.


How can it be possible that your supreme reasoning and logic just proved two contradictory things?

jkjsooner
2/3/2012, 05:14 PM
ict, is that you? Missed ya dude. Haven't heard ignorant/ignorance in awhile.

You are trying to dazzle with your knowledge. You want to argue how the forest got to be the forest. I and others say, here is the seed that started the forest. How did it get there?

You say, either a) it was always there, or b) the matter that created the seed was always there we just couldn't see it.

Fine. How did that hidden matter get there? Always is a long time.


First, I don't know who ict is.

Second, you're calling me ignorant for correct people's misconceptions about scientific matters?

I never once said I knew how matter/energy/time or anything came to be. In fact, I even said that the Big Bang - at least as it was originally defined - doesn't really attempt to answer what happened before the Big Bang. You can look it up. It's in this thread.

I'm not sure why addressing very specific scientific topics and ignoring unrelated philosophical issues makes me ignorant.

I suppose my professors in thermodynamics were just as ignorant.


You can no more be sure of that than the day of your own death. Scientists will NEVER prove God didn't start the Universe. No matter how much they want to do so.

Guess what? I believe in God. I also want to say I believe in the Christian God but I'd be lying if I said my belief is the same as the "know that you know that you know" expected from my Baptists ministers.

I've even stated that one reason I believe in God (or at least something beyond our current realm of science) is because I don't at all believe that consciousness can be explained merely by physical means. I think I even stated that in this thread but maybe that was another one.


What I do believe is that religion needs to stay the heck out of science.

Ike
2/5/2012, 12:36 AM
I've been enjoying the theory of the expanding/contracting universe regarding the big bang. Not sure how time and space didn't exist prior to the initial bang since the universe was compressing prior to the initial bang. I guess that means space and time didn't exist only before the initial big bang as every restart bang would have still have had a prior history...

Might I suggest you read about the ekpyrotic universe...an intriguing theory, but sadly dependent on string theory being true. Currently we have no way to directly test string theory, although it seems to replicate what we observe and can calculate under the standard model. Here is a good layman's overview from 8 years ago: http://discovermagazine.com/2004/feb/cover

SoonerAtKU
2/6/2012, 04:58 PM
Furthermore, do we know time is infinite?

Bound by the speed of light, yes? Anything that would happen in a time/space that is outside the boundaries of c can be assumed to be "impossible" or "distinctly and assumedly improbable".

I always liked drawing out Hawking's light speed cone to show people that we can narrow the definition of "reality" based on some easily definable characteristics. I have no idea if that's an accepted or interesting model any longer, but it works great to blow someone's mind on a bar napkin.