Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

baddog1 wrote:

c_logic wrote:
Would it be fair to say that even though they were created, it's possible they were created by a "process" and not some sort of a being/entity?

Sure it would be fair to say that your scenario could've happened. Of course then the question moves to who created the "process"?

How about: what process created the "process"?
This may still lead us to some sort of infinite regression, but this time "trimmed" to yield no middleman (no intelligent entity).

0 Replies

c_logic wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
c_logic wrote:
Would it be fair to say that even though they were created, it's possible they were created by a "process" and not some sort of a being/entity?

Sure it would be fair to say that your scenario could've happened. Of course then the question moves to who created the "process"?

How about: what process created the "process"?
This may still lead us to some sort of infinite regression, but this time "trimmed" to yield no middleman (no intelligent entity).

If this is what you believe - then you should hang onto it.

For me - it's too short-sighted. (Not a personal attack.) If one chooses to believe in definitions as discovered and/or provided by an established society, then logic and deductive reasoning (as used in science) will prove that there was a beginning of some sort - and consequently - that someone(s) invented everything except perhaps itself.

0 Replies

What about mass? or Energy?

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

What about mass? or Energy?

What about it?

0 Replies

Sorry, I was lazy and thought that it might just pick up. I'm referring to the conservation of mass and conservation of energy. As in energy and mass are examples of things in the universe that are not created.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
It may surprise you, Ros, but creationism has to do with creation.

That means going back to the beginning.

Come on RL, that's not an answer to the question.

You said:

real life wrote:
An evolutionist will interpret the evidence in one way. A creationist will interpret the evidence in another way.

And all I asked was that you...

rosborne979 wrote:
Please give an example of an item which you consider to be evidence for creationism, and explain how it should be viewed such that it supports creationism.

It's a fair question don't you think?

I honestly don't understand how you can interpet any physical evidence such that it supports or implies specific creation, and I just wanted you to give me an example. Is that too much to ask?

And I gave you an example.

The universe had a beginning point.

Let's start with that. You wanted me to discuss creationism and that's where it begins, not where evolution supposedly enters the picture.

Now either the universe actually had a beginning point or it did not (it was eternally existent).

Both science and creationism seem to agree that the universe had a beginning.

Agreed so far?

0 Replies

The present universe of time and space seems to have originated from a single point in space/time. You can't conclude more than that. For example, did another universe collapse to produce the big bang? Will it eventually happen again? Did it come "from nothing"? Not necessarily. Nobody knows.

0 Replies

All we know is that the laws of physics just are. It just so happens that when all the interactions from objects come together, evolution happens. If it didn't, we wouldn't be here. There is no way that we can work out from where the universe originated. For all we know, the could be a whole bunch or universes (multiverses?) out there in which evolution does not exist. In turn, we can say that it is highly unlikely that life exists, for without the ability to adapt, any life created (in whatever way) will soon die.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
It may surprise you, Ros, but creationism has to do with creation.

That means going back to the beginning.

Come on RL, that's not an answer to the question.

You said:

real life wrote:
An evolutionist will interpret the evidence in one way. A creationist will interpret the evidence in another way.

And all I asked was that you...

rosborne979 wrote:
Please give an example of an item which you consider to be evidence for creationism, and explain how it should be viewed such that it supports creationism.

It's a fair question don't you think?

I honestly don't understand how you can interpet any physical evidence such that it supports or implies specific creation, and I just wanted you to give me an example. Is that too much to ask?

And I gave you an example.

The universe had a beginning point.

Let's start with that. You wanted me to discuss creationism and that's where it begins, not where evolution supposedly enters the picture.

Now either the universe actually had a beginning point or it did not (it was eternally existent).

Both science and creationism seem to agree that the universe had a beginning.

Agreed so far?

You can't be serious.

You say evidence can be interpreted different ways, and all I ask for is an example of such evidence, and your answer is "The universe had a beginning point"?

That's your idea of 'evidence'? Science trots out real rocks dated with multiple radiometric methods, fossils which match a biological pattern of development, located in rocks which are atomically dated and correspond with predicted biological epochs, insects in amber formed millions of years ago, genetic markers which correspond with geology, morphology and biology, geologic features which match the physics of formation, plate tectonics which match biological dispersion along with fossil evidence, and cosmological timescales and atomic formation which support the whole picture, and all you can come up with for creation 'evidence' is "The universe had a beginning point"...

If that's the best you can do, then you can just forget about using the following argument...

real life wrote:

An evolutionist will interpret the evidence in one way. A creationist will interpret the evidence in another way.

ever again, because right now, it looks like your definition of 'evidence for creation' isn't even worthy of a comic book.

0 Replies

Ros, would you agree that everything must have a cause?

0 Replies

c_logic wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
I don't know about c_logic, but I would prefer if you just answered the question I asked (and c_logic repeated). It seemed like a very reasonable question, given your claims of alternate interpretations.

Agree - It's a fairly simple question. There should be no reason why we need to start at the beginning.

Correct. It is a simple question. But RL can't answer it. He's already trying to change the subject. His previous claim of alternate interpretations is obviously just a sound-bite without any teeth.

0 Replies

Nope. Still same subject.

The universe had a beginning point. Do you agree that everything has a cause?

(Creationism refers to the beginning, I thought you knew that.)

0 Replies

real life,

In order to have a constructive debate, it's helpful to know the other side's argument in more detail. I'm not sure I understand your stance and I'm too lazy to go back and re-read the past posts of this thread (I don't know if you ever mentioned anything about your stance...).

Let me ask you this to clarify things a bit:

1. Do you believe in the traditional biblical interpretation of Creationism? (i.e. god created the universe and the earth in seven days, created Adam and Eve, etc...)
2. Do you in some way believe in the big bang theory while at the same time think that a divine creator was behind it and possibly influenced the develpment of things (and ultimately humans) in the last several billions of years?

Please tell us more about your personal opinion, and we'll try to have a constructive debate by examining each side's evidence.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Sorry, I was lazy and thought that it might just pick up. I'm referring to the conservation of mass and conservation of energy. As in energy and mass are examples of things in the universe that are not created.

Deist: Are you saying that energy & mass were or are not created?

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Sorry, I was lazy and thought that it might just pick up. I'm referring to the conservation of mass and conservation of energy. As in energy and mass are examples of things in the universe that are not created.

Deist: Are you saying that energy & mass were or are not created?

That's correct. If they can be created, I'd like to see how.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

baddog1 wrote:

Deist: Are you saying that energy & mass were or are not created?

That's correct. If they can be created, I'd like to see how.

Well, if I remember correctly from high school: "Matter cannot be created nor destroyed" in our universe. The theory is that all this stuff originated from an infinitely small and infinitely dense single point (precursor to big bang). That "single point" itself - in terms of "how" and "why" - is a mystery.

(I know you may be tempted to say that it has to do with intelligent design, but that would be highly speculative and wouldn't really explain anything Smile

)

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Nope. Still same subject.

I doubt it, but I'll play your game. What the heck.

real life wrote:

The universe had a beginning point. Do you agree that everything has a cause?

When you say 'everything' what do you mean exactly?

Does 'everything' include things like traffic signs? Are you asking if traffic signs have a cause? Or are you asking about a non-physical thing like 'commerce'. Are you asking if commerce have a cause?

What do you mean exactly? And why is it necessary for me to answer this question before you can give us an example of something which is evidence for Creationism?

real life wrote:

(Creationism refers to the beginning, I thought you knew that.)

Creationism has several definitions. Which one do you want to talk about? I was assuming you were talking about definition #2 because you put a capital "C" in front of creationism (as noted in the dictionary below). But if you want to talk about #1 that's fine.

Which is it?

cre·a·tion·ism [kree-ey-shuh-niz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun

1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, esp. in the first chapter of Genesis.
3. the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

When you say 'everything' what do you mean exactly?

*sigh*

0 Replies

c_logic wrote:

real life,

In order to have a constructive debate, it's helpful to know the other side's argument in more detail. I'm not sure I understand your stance and I'm too lazy to go back and re-read the past posts of this thread (I don't know if you ever mentioned anything about your stance...).

Let me ask you this to clarify things a bit:

1. Do you believe in the traditional biblical interpretation of Creationism? (i.e. god created the universe and the earth in seven days, created Adam and Eve, etc...)
2. Do you in some way believe in the big bang theory while at the same time think that a divine creator was behind it and possibly influenced the develpment of things (and ultimately humans) in the last several billions of years?

Please tell us more about your personal opinion, and we'll try to have a constructive debate by examining each side's evidence.

1. yes, to the two specifics you mention

2. insofar as the big bang theory shows the universe had a beginning point, yes. I would disagree with the timeline , commonly held to be billions of years.

Do you agree that everything has a cause? (I hope you understand what that means.)

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
(Creationism refers to the beginning, I thought you knew that.)

Creationism has several definitions. Which one do you want to talk about? I was assuming you were talking about definition #2 because you put a capital "C" in front of creationism (as noted in the dictionary below). But if you want to talk about #1 that's fine.

Which is it?

cre·a·tion·ism [kree-ey-shuh-niz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun

1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, esp. in the first chapter of Genesis.
3. the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born.

I have no problem with any of these.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know