Creation Or Evolution? Vote!

[Ventusyr 233]

Admittedly, I'm no expert on statistics or anything, and I really can't refute this... But from what I gather from this: 

Is that it does in fact increase the chance of it happening. The more chances you give for something to happen the more likely it is to do so. At least, thats what I think... Again, I have really no idea.

 

Regarding your second argument, allow me to point one thing out.

Yes, it is hard to imagine that life can arise from nothing... But then tell me, how is a creator made? With the idea of a creator, you must then explain how the creator came to be, and is an omnipotent, all-powerful being not much, much harder to explain than a single-celled organism?

I'm not totally sure what you mean when you ask what the point of molecules creating cellular life is, or what you mean by saying you wonder 'why life arises'. If you mean the obvious by those statements, then it is very much like asking what the purpose of a mountain is, what the meaning of a mountain is. There is no meaning, it is simply a byproduct of an event- that event being the collision of the earth's plates.

The link you sent me talked about chances increasing, but specifically says probability remains the same. With probability, the result you get isn't the definite amount, it is a predicted amount. So, as in the example, out of 1000 people, 10 should say yes, but it isn't gaurunteed that they will.

The creator wasn't made. He has always existed... It is a difficult prospect to think of, much more than human minds can conceive. We have yet to see anything immortal; how could we possibly see things that extend infinitely in both directions of the timeline? He isn't bound by time, so he never actually came into existence... Thus enter string theory as an explanation of the universe without a creator. So yes, He is infinitely more complex to think of than a bacteria life form.

What I am wondering is why molecules would join together and create microbial life. The atoms bond to balance themselves out and prevent atomic explosions, but why would the molecules bond together to form life? What makes a collection of molecules different from microbes with the same molecular ingredients? What caused life is a better way to put my question.

[Dun_Irongut 104]

The link you sent me talked about chances increasing, but specifically says probability remains the same. With probability, the result you get isn't the definite amount, it is a predicted amount. So, as in the example, out of 1000 people, 10 should say yes, but it isn't gaurunteed that they will.

The creator wasn't made. He has always existed... It is a difficult prospect to think of, much more than human minds can conceive. We have yet to see anything immortal; how could we possibly see things that extend infinitely in both directions of the timeline? He isn't bound by time, so he never actually came into existence... Thus enter string theory as an explanation of the universe without a creator. So yes, He is infinitely more complex to think of than a bacteria life form.

What I am wondering is why molecules would join together and create microbial life. The atoms bond to balance themselves out and prevent atomic explosions, but why would the molecules bond together to form life? What makes a collection of molecules different from microbes with the same molecular ingredients? What caused life is a better way to put my question.

 

By the same logic and level of "complexity," why would something always exist? Simply saying immortality is a difficult concept to understand does not provide an understanding, nor does it provide irrefutable evidence. I really hate to tout such an overused law, but when Ockham's Razor comes into play, which do you think is simpler. Organisms eventually forming out of chance throughout the infinite vastness that is the facade of time or a being that has always existed without question? 

[Xerxes_XIII 2 200]

The link you sent me talked about chances increasing, but specifically says probability remains the same. With probability, the result you get isn't the definite amount, it is a predicted amount. So, as in the example, out of 1000 people, 10 should say yes, but it isn't gaurunteed that they will.

The creator wasn't made. He has always existed... It is a difficult prospect to think of, much more than human minds can conceive. We have yet to see anything immortal; how could we possibly see things that extend infinitely in both directions of the timeline? He isn't bound by time, so he never actually came into existence... Thus enter string theory as an explanation of the universe without a creator. So yes, He is infinitely more complex to think of than a bacteria life form.

What I am wondering is why molecules would join together and create microbial life. The atoms bond to balance themselves out and prevent atomic explosions, but why would the molecules bond together to form life? What makes a collection of molecules different from microbes with the same molecular ingredients? What caused life is a better way to put my question.

I stand corrected on the matter of probability, but regarding the rest of your post...

By the same logic and level of "complexity," why would something always exist? Simply saying immortality is a difficult concept to understand does not provide an understanding, nor does it provide irrefutable evidence. I really hate to tout such an overused law, but when Ockham's Razor comes into play, which do you think is simpler. Organisms eventually forming out of chance throughout the infinite vastness that is the facade of time or a being that has always existed without question? 

[Wavejammers 328]

I hate to nag on words, but "it just happens" isn't the best of an explanation... The rest of it makes some sense, though. I remember reading some stuff about it in a textbook, but it never said why, really. Thank you!

1. Where did you get that idea? There is tons of evidence to support the Earth being 4.2 billion years old. But the Bible specifically said that God was the first thing in the universe, so I am inclined to believe that before God, there was nothing. There wasn't a "before God" either, because... This is where the prospect of God gets complicated and a lot of debates, headaches, and insanity. He has always existed. He is ageless, timeless, and not bound by our puny concept of reality. He is, however, bound by the basic laws of physics.

2. Possessed? No. God does not usually possess people, because that would be taking away their free will. Moreso sent a message to them, nudging them in the right direction.

1. Well. There have just been about 1.000 or more Ice Ages during the earths life time to do the job, So why exactly, did it happen during a Hot Period or whatever it's called in English? That would be rather unlikely. And why wouldn't the water run down the hole it came from?

[Ventusyr 233]

By the same logic and level of "complexity," why would something always exist? Simply saying immortality is a difficult concept to understand does not provide an understanding, nor does it provide irrefutable evidence. I really hate to tout such an overused law, but when Ockham's Razor comes into play, which do you think is simpler. Organisms eventually forming out of chance throughout the infinite vastness that is the facade of time or a being that has always existed without question? 

I know it doesn't explain it. I really don't know how to explain it. The only way I can possibly attempt to explain the complexities of Him is by saying He isn't a physical being, therefore he isn't part of the concept we call "time." He is infinitely larger than everything. He must exist outside the universe(s). I know that probably didn't clear anything up, but on that subject, I think you may need to find someone with a theology degree.

Ockham's Razor states that, and I quote from Wikipedia, "among competing theories, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected." Comparing creationism and creation without a creator:

- A being who expanded the universe, moved a planet to the Goldilocks zone, combined molecules, and created life.

OR

- A universe that spontaneously imploded and exploded

- A sun that formed on the outer edge of a galaxy, away from the clusters of stars and radiation of the center

- A planet that just happened to form in the Goldilocks zone of the planet Sol

- Which just happened to form with H2O and other life-supporting compounds

- Which happened to have a need to form together and create compounds

- Which just happened to have the right heat to have molecules form together and creat microbial life

- Which just happened to have the ability to adapt with Earth's changing environments

- Which just happened to combine together and create cellular life

- Which just happened to combine together and create simple crustaceans and worms

- Which just happened to be able to change into fish and other sea creatures after a long period of time

- Which just happened to desire to go onto land for some reason

- Which just happened to evolve into dinosaurs and, later, mammals

- Which led to primates who realized walking on two legs was a more energy-efficient way to move around long distances

- Whose brains began expanding and learning about tools and such...

- You know the rest.

Anyways, according to Occam's Razor, you should choose Creationism, because it is only assuming one thing, whereas the arrival of sentient life without a creator is requiring at least 15+ assumptions. You make an excellent point about complexity though. It is much easier to explain a microbial life form than God.

1. Well. There have just been about 1.000 or more Ice Ages during the earths life time to do the job, So why exactly, did it happen during a Hot Period or whatever it's called in English? That would be rather unlikely. And why wouldn't the water run down the hole it came from?

In all Ice Ages, a warm period is required to evaporate water from the poles and distribute it throughout the world. This slowly cools down Earth's temperature until an Ice Age occurs. What I was suggesting was a fountain, flying up into the atmosphere, freezing, then coming down as an ocean of rain that could last over a month and most certainly would temporarily flood the world. It might have run down the hole again after the flood was over, but it would also have been transported around the world, and the hole might have collapsed after the only thing keeping it up (the water) had disappeared.

[Xerxes_XIII 2 200]

I know it doesn't explain it. I really don't know how to explain it. The only way I can possibly attempt to explain the complexities of Him is by saying He isn't a physical being, therefore he isn't part of the concept we call "time." He is infinitely larger than everything. He must exist outside the universe(s). I know that probably didn't clear anything up, but on that subject, I think you may need to find someone with a theology degree.

Ockham's Razor states that, and I quote from Wikipedia, "among competing theories, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected." Comparing creationism and creation without a creator:

- A being who expanded the universe, moved a planet to the Goldilocks zone, combined molecules, and created life.

OR

- A universe that spontaneously imploded and exploded

- A sun that formed on the outer edge of a galaxy, away from the clusters of stars and radiation of the center

- A planet that just happened to form in the Goldilocks zone of the planet Sol

- Which just happened to form with H2O and other life-supporting compounds

- Which happened to have a need to form together and create compounds

- Which just happened to have the right heat to have molecules form together and creat microbial life

- Which just happened to have the ability to adapt with Earth's changing environments

- Which just happened to combine together and create cellular life

- Which just happened to combine together and create simple crustaceans and worms

- Which just happened to be able to change into fish and other sea creatures after a long period of time

- Which just happened to desire to go onto land for some reason

- Which just happened to evolve into dinosaurs and, later, mammals

- Which led to primates who realized walking on two legs was a more energy-efficient way to move around long distances

- Whose brains began expanding and learning about tools and such...

- You know the rest.

Anyways, according to Occam's Razor, you should choose Creationism, because it is only assuming one thing, whereas the arrival of sentient life without a creator is requiring at least 15+ assumptions. You make an excellent point about complexity though. It is much easier to explain a microbial life form than God.

In all Ice Ages, a warm period is required to evaporate water from the poles and distribute it throughout the world. This slowly cools down Earth's temperature until an Ice Age occurs. What I was suggesting was a fountain, flying up into the atmosphere, freezing, then coming down as an ocean of rain that could last over a month and most certainly would temporarily flood the world. It might have run down the hole again after the flood was over, but it would also have been transported around the world, and the hole might have collapsed after the only thing keeping it up (the water) had disappeared.

 

(As a forewarning, I may not sound quite as bubbly as I usually do x3 I haven't slept in quite a while so forgive me for any less eloquent or slightly unpleasant wordings.)

You phrase it as if the idea of creation is so much simpler... But you cannot simply use the excuse of God being 'out of our understanding' or 'much more complex than we can comprehend' as a cop out. If that excuse can be used to justify the idealism of god, then certainly the exact same excuse can be used to explain the big bang.

And, if I may, I would like to suggest that it is much better to make a series of minor, falsifiable guesses (ones that can be proven or disproven in time) than a single, massive assumption that is non-falsifiable, and in turn brings up multiple other assumptions that are impossible to explain.

Science however, isn't particularly fond of such excuses.

Allow me to clarify a few things with my rather meager knowledge of physics.

 

The leading theory on the big bang is much more complex than the universe suddenly just exploding into existence. The most likely theory in my opinion (and I use the word theory only because it cannot be proven as fact- although much evidence supports it.) is that the universe is the result of two... bubbles, colliding in hyper-space and forming a universe, or alternately, one bubble fissioning into two. To try and explain the complexities of hyper-space and these bubbles is... rather impossible for me to do, so allow me to link you to a video that may clarify this.

[Ventusyr 233]

(As a forewarning, I may not sound quite as bubbly as I usually do x3 I haven't slept in quite a while so forgive me for any less eloquent or slightly unpleasant wordings.)

You phrase it as if the idea of creation is so much simpler... But you cannot simply use the excuse of God being 'out of our understanding' or 'much more complex than we can comprehend' as a cop out. If that excuse can be used to justify the idealism of god, then certainly the exact same excuse can be used to explain the big bang.

And, if I may, I would like to suggest that it is much better to make a series of minor, falsifiable guesses (ones that can be proven or disproven in time) than a single, massive assumption that is non-falsifiable, and in turn brings up multiple other assumptions that are impossible to explain.

Science however, isn't particularly fond of such excuses.

Allow me to clarify a few things with my rather meager knowledge of physics.

 

The leading theory on the big bang is much more complex than the universe suddenly just exploding into existence. The most likely theory in my opinion (and I use the word theory only because it cannot be proven as fact- although much evidence supports it.) is that the universe is the result of two... bubbles, colliding in hyper-space and forming a universe, or alternately, one bubble fissioning into two. To try and explain the complexities of hyper-space and these bubbles is... rather impossible for me to do, so allow me to link you to a video that may clarify this.

Oh, it's fine. I'm kinda tired too...

I'm not trying to use it as a cop-out. I'm sure someone with a theology degree could explain it better, but it is out of my understanding. If the multiverse/hyperspace is a bubble bath, then God is the person who prepared it.

The universe, according to Kaku, originated from nothing. It is free. But I find his reasoning for this slightly flawed. The positive mass of the universe cancels out with the negative energy of gravity, which, of course, equals zero. However, this would mean that there would be nothing in the universe. Everything would have canceled out. It also gives rise to wondering where the multiverse came from. If a universe arrives from the fission/fusion of two bubbles, then where did the first bubbles come from? You keep going backwards, until finally, I feel it would be necessary for someone/something to start it all.

[argonian 14254]

About this great flood stuff: Some people now have strong arguments for the flood being local. I'm not sure about it myself but here it is anyway: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

[Dun_Irongut 104]

I know it doesn't explain it. I really don't know how to explain it. The only way I can possibly attempt to explain the complexities of Him is by saying He isn't a physical being, therefore he isn't part of the concept we call "time." He is infinitely larger than everything. He must exist outside the universe(s). I know that probably didn't clear anything up, but on that subject, I think you may need to find someone with a theology degree.

Ockham's Razor states that, and I quote from Wikipedia, "among competing theories, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected." Comparing creationism and creation without a creator:

- A being who expanded the universe, moved a planet to the Goldilocks zone, combined molecules, and created life.

OR

- A universe that spontaneously imploded and exploded

- A sun that formed on the outer edge of a galaxy, away from the clusters of stars and radiation of the center

- A planet that just happened to form in the Goldilocks zone of the planet Sol

- Which just happened to form with H2O and other life-supporting compounds

- Which happened to have a need to form together and create compounds

- Which just happened to have the right heat to have molecules form together and creat microbial life

- Which just happened to have the ability to adapt with Earth's changing environments

- Which just happened to combine together and create cellular life

- Which just happened to combine together and create simple crustaceans and worms

- Which just happened to be able to change into fish and other sea creatures after a long period of time

- Which just happened to desire to go onto land for some reason

- Which just happened to evolve into dinosaurs and, later, mammals

- Which led to primates who realized walking on two legs was a more energy-efficient way to move around long distances

- Whose brains began expanding and learning about tools and such...

- You know the rest.

Anyways, according to Occam's Razor, you should choose Creationism, because it is only assuming one thing, whereas the arrival of sentient life without a creator is requiring at least 15+ assumptions. You make an excellent point about complexity though. It is much easier to explain a microbial life form than God.

 

This argument is based on an logical fallacy  You've simply expanded the amount of possible arguments against Evolution from one argument. If you were to use the same standard that you used for "A being who expanded the universe, moved a planet to the Goldilocks zone, combined molecules, and created life," then the entire counter point would be one sentence. It's a fairly good tactic to use in arguments (and I admit to doing it often myself), but it's still only meant to make ones point seem more simplistic. 

 

I'm not trying to use it as a cop-out. I'm sure someone with a theology degree could explain it better, but it is out of my understanding. If the multiverse/hyperspace is a bubble bath, then God is the person who prepared it.

 

I understand where you're going with that, but why? You said earlier that something can always exist, did you not? Why, by the same standard, when putting it quite simply, "something originating from nothing." We've never laid our eyes on "nothing," so it's odd to say that it's implausible. The only difference between that and God is that nothing directly points to an omnipotent creator. I'm just saying, as I said earlier and as many have said earlier, such "theories" are much less probable than the one advocated by just about all of the scientific community. 

[Ventusyr 233]

 This argument is based on an logical fallacy  You've simply expanded the amount of possible arguments against Evolution from one argument. If you were to use the same standard that you used for "A being who expanded the universe, moved a planet to the Goldilocks zone, combined molecules, and created life," then the entire counter point would be one sentence. It's a fairly good tactic to use in arguments (and I admit to doing it often myself), but it's still only meant to make ones point seem more simplistic. 

 

 

I understand where you're going with that, but why? You said earlier that something can always exist, did you not? Why, by the same standard, when putting it quite simply, "something originating from nothing." We've never laid our eyes on "nothing," so it's odd to say that it's implausible. The only difference between that and God is that nothing directly points to an omnipotent creator. I'm just saying, as I said earlier and as many have said earlier, such "theories" are much less probable than the one advocated by just about all of the scientific community. 

It is not a logical fallacy. Assumption for Creationism: there was a omnipotent being who created the universe(s). Assumptions for the arrival of life without God... Well, I already stated all of them. It is very simple. I only made one point in the first argument, mentioning where he put the planets and such, but in all, there was only one assumption. Evolution without a creator's assistance requires a plethora of environmental assumptions.

Could you quote me on that? I'm not sure where I said that. I said God could always exist, but this is assuming He is an omnipotent non-physical being. I was not suggesting a physical thing, such as a universe, could exist from nothing. He did not "originate." He had no beginning.

It's not implausible when something originates from nothing? But it is implausible say an omnipotent being not bound by our concepts of time has no beginning? Nothing points to there not being a God, which, by the same logic, makes that just as plausible.

How is a theory with a Creator much less probable than one advocated by those of scientists? Something spontaneously generating from nothing, versus something starting it all. I'm not concentrating on the "how" but moreso the "why."

[JtPv 140]

Back. Give me your worst.   

[Xerxes_XIII 2 200]

Oh, it's fine. I'm kinda tired too...

I'm not trying to use it as a cop-out. I'm sure someone with a theology degree could explain it better, but it is out of my understanding. If the multiverse/hyperspace is a bubble bath, then God is the person who prepared it.

The universe, according to Kaku, originated from nothing. It is free. But I find his reasoning for this slightly flawed. The positive mass of the universe cancels out with the negative energy of gravity, which, of course, equals zero. However, this would mean that there would be nothing in the universe. Everything would have canceled out. It also gives rise to wondering where the multiverse came from. If a universe arrives from the fission/fusion of two bubbles, then where did the first bubbles come from? You keep going backwards, until finally, I feel it would be necessary for someone/something to start it all.

As far as the hyperspace theory goes... I don't think either of us has any place in questioning a physics prodigy. I can't really refute your argument considering I know nothing about it, but I think its fair to say that Maku knows far, far more than either of us and that we should just take his word for it.

Also, if you're going to question the origin of the multiverse, why don't you question the origin of god? The multiverse is no more within our understanding than he is, the only difference is that the multiverse actually has a lot of evidence pointing towards it being true. You cannot just say that god is 'outside of nature' or is beyond our understanding, if you are not willing to do the same for other, just as complicated things. Besides, why is it that hyperspace couldn't theoretically just be another soap bubble expanding or fissioning within another hyper space? I could say that there is an infinite string of hyper spaces, and it would still be easier to explain than god.

I think that if you're going to apply so much scrutiny to science, you should at least apply the same amount to God and religion. (Yes I'm aware the bible says you can't do that, but really... Isn't it just rather convenient that it forbids the questioning of itself?)

 

Moving away from the hyperspace idea, I'd like to present you with a few questions regarding religion if I may. (I'm genuinely curious about these things.)

1: Why is it that, out of the thousands of other religions, you think yours is correct?

2: What are your thoughts on the geographical influence on what religion people are? If you were born in Iraq, you'd probably be a Muslim.

[Dun_Irongut 104]

As far as the hyperspace theory goes... I don't think either of us has any place in questioning a physics prodigy. I can't really refute your argument considering I know nothing about it, but I think its fair to say that Maku knows far, far more than either of us and that we should just take his word for it.

Also, if you're going to question the origin of the multiverse, why don't you question the origin of god? The multiverse is no more within our understanding than he is, the only difference is that the multiverse actually has a lot of evidence pointing towards it being true. You cannot just say that god is 'outside of nature' or is beyond our understanding, if you are not willing to do the same for other, just as complicated things. Besides, why is it that hyperspace couldn't theoretically just be another soap bubble expanding or fissioning within another hyper space? I could say that there is an infinite string of hyper spaces, and it would still be easier to explain than god.

I think that if you're going to apply so much scrutiny to science, you should at least apply the same amount to God and religion. (Yes I'm aware the bible says you can't do that, but really... Isn't it just rather convenient that it forbids the questioning of itself?)

 

Moving away from the hyperspace idea, I'd like to present you with a few questions regarding religion if I may. (I'm genuinely curious about these things.)

1: Why is it that, out of the thousands of other religions, you think yours is correct?

2: What are your thoughts on the geographical influence on what religion people are? If you were born in Iraq, you'd probably be a Muslim.

This is a well written response of what I wished to say. As for the way you structured your argument being a logical fallacy, I'll give you an example.

 

Which is more complex?

 

Eat a cheeseburger with no sesame seeds.

 

or

 

Gather necessary bread.

Gather necessary tomatoes.

Gather necessary cheese. 

Gather necessary meat. 

Grill meat.

Place all ingredients onto bun.

Place a sesame seed bun on top.

 

 

They are both virtually he same thing. Both could have been summed up and condensed into one sentence, yet one is made more "complex" through the use of several different inner workings of the concept being expanded out. One has sesame seeds, the other does not. It is a minor difference and there is no real difference in the level of complexity. You could just as easily done the same thing with your explanation for God. It would just be a matter of posing several questions with that answer. Again, it's an effective tactic in a debate and is "persuasively valid", but it is a fallacy nonetheless. 

[Bashar al-Assad 120]

Okay you know what, okay evolutionism might not exist, it is just a theory after all. Though there is one thing I have to say. There is no evidence behind Creationism at all. It is something based purely off of belief. You can believe just that, and I would understand it if we lacked the knowledge that theory of Evolutionism brought. I am rather religious, but I view these sort of things as synonyms for evolutionism. The entire simplified idea of creationism simply can't exist. Anyone seriously arguing for Creationism has nothing to prove it. 

[Jistuma 1996]

Okay you know what, okay evolutionism might not exist, it is just a theory after all. Though there is one thing I have to say. There is no evidence behind Creationism at all. It is something based purely off of belief. You can believe just that, and I would understand it if we lacked the knowledge that theory of Evolutionism brought. I am rather religious, but I view these sort of things as synonyms for evolutionism. The entire simplified idea of creationism simply can't exist. Anyone seriously arguing for Creationism has nothing to prove it.

Theory means it's basicly real. Like gravitational theory.

Theory means it's the best explanation the scientists have, and it backed up by a lot of evidence. Actually the theory of evolution just can't be called fact, because it's the explanation, but evolution can be called a fact. Same as we can state that gravity is a fact, but gravitational gravity is the expanation on how gravity works. Pretty much, evolution HAS to exist, it has been observed and proven. The theory on the other hand may change, and has been changing throughout the many years, it's how science works, it keeps changing and improving. Nothing is 100% true in science, it also makes assumptions (Like, we exist, this is a material world, and a few others things that really can't be proven, really try to prove you exist, it's impossible but accepted truth).

So the theory of evolution is true, might not be 100% true, but it is true and it's purpose is done, helping biologists and the kind improve other things and understand why some things work, and why others don't, and predict the future.