My Physics Department has become a front for creationists.

[PvtRyan]

Given the origins of how the universe came to be haven't yet been firmly established then debate is surely still on the cards? Scientific fundamentalism much? I think so. :dozey:

WTF, seriously? Debate is always on the cards, giving the village nut jobs a public podium is not. What exactly makes you think that creationism warrants a debate on equal ground? Hell, it's not even an idea, no hypothesis, it's just anti-evolution. Come with a solid hypothesis, some evidence and then we can talk. Until then it's just a whole lot of "making shit up".

Also:

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Ducky!

 

[Eejit]

That bugger's got a sixth sense!

 

[jverne]

WTF, seriously? Debate is always on the cards, giving the village nut jobs a public podium is not. What exactly makes you think that creationism warrants a debate on equal ground? Hell, it's not even an idea, no hypothesis, it's just anti-evolution. Come with a solid hypothesis, some evidence and then we can talk. Until then it's just a whole lot of "making shit up".

Also:

i just wanted to say that to kadayi


debate is all good and stuff...but when you're debating with someone how just makes up things as they go. it's not really productive

but i agree that the idea that something came out of nothing is stretching it...but let me say it this way. science has a good record of proving stuff or better yet, disproving false beliefs. so practically speaking why even bother with a god? (usually) everything that (true) science makes is way more logical and believable than what religion has to offer, even if it is completely wrong.

it's especially idiotic to give the more established and organized religions more truth value...where's the difference between the bible and some lunatic that hands out pamphlets on how the government is reading our minds and how only Buddhist monks can counter them?

kadayi...your cause is noble, but you're doing it wrong

 

[No Limit]

but i agree that the idea that something came out of nothing is stretching it

Isn't that the big bang theory? Don't get me wrong, I am not defending creationism. But any scientific explaination that we will ever have for the orgin of life involves something being made from nothing.

 

[PvtRyan]

Isn't that the big bang theory? Don't get me wrong, I am not defending creationism. But any scientific explaination that we will ever have for the orgin of life involves something being made from nothing.

So will any religious explanation

 

[Adrien C]

So is it a case of you live there by choice because of this, or is the reality more than you live there because you were born there and are too poor to move to a more enlightened and free thinking country? One where debate on a subject is allowed? :dozey:





I think quite a few view much of what is written as allegorical rather than literal.

I was born in France, lived 10 years in Latin America ( Mexico , Colombia) and a couple more in Wales and decided to come back to France to live.

French politics are as securlar as it gets here, no " God bless this nation" hypocrisy here. You won't see creationism or "Inteligent" design being thought near our schools .

Those hard core evangelical by-the-bible christians groups you guys have in the USA are actually considered sects here in France. They are ilegal.

 

[Solaris]

Not nessacarilly; there is the multiverse idea...

 

[jverne]

Isn't that the big bang theory? Don't get me wrong, I am not defending creationism. But any scientific explaination that we will ever have for the orgin of life involves something being made from nothing.

yes i was talking about the big bang



the multiverse is quite similar in this regard...what was before it?


that's why we as irrational humans must...grr (i hate this)...just accept that we'd probably never come to the end. science can explain everything right up to it but not further. so practically speaking science is closer to the truth that anything we know of today and probably even in a long time to come.

so in real life it comes down to faith...yeah...but faith is not religion. there's a huge difference.

that doesn't mean we shouldn't be skeptic about everything...and we should continue the search for the ultimate end.

 

[Polaris]

Solaris, I can imagine how angry you must be, it's really disgusting that those people are now in UK and even in your education system. Your reply was great, keep fight the good fight!
You know how important it is.

 

[Kadayi]

WTF, seriously? Debate is always on the cards, giving the village nut jobs a public podium is not. What exactly makes you think that creationism warrants a debate on equal ground? Hell, it's not even an idea, no hypothesis, it's just anti-evolution. Come with a solid hypothesis, some evidence and then we can talk. Until then it's just a whole lot of "making shit up".

Why are you running to 'creationsim'? I'm not even remotely talking about religion or the allegorical beliefs of any religious group as justified argument. Fact of the matter is the absolutes of how the universe came into being aren't remotely firmly established, merely theorised upon, therefore its not 'off table' as you would have it to consider the possibility that the universes existence was the result of intentional forces (all hail Cthulhu!!!) rather than unintentional forces (it just happened...). THINK for once in your life. :dozey:

French politics are as securlar as it gets here, no " God bless this nation" hypocrisy here. You won't see creationism or "Intelligent" design being thought near our schools.

It's called having a debate, not teaching. You and a few others in this thread desperately need to comprehend this distinction.

 

[jverne]

Why are you running to 'creationsim'? I'm not even remotely talking about religion or the allegorical beliefs of any religious group as justified argument. Fact of the matter is the absolutes of how the universe came into being aren't remotely firmly established, merely theorised upon, therefore its not 'off table' as you would have it to consider the possibility that the universes existence was the result of intentional forces (all hail Cthulhu!!!) rather than unintentional forces (it just happened...). THINK for once in your life. :dozey:



It's called having a debate, not teaching. You and a few others in this thread desperately need to comprehend this distinction.

first of all he's not running to creationism, he just made an example of what is unworthy of debating.

second

Thus why I live in France. Your teacher would be send to jail for sending that particular email, let alone having that kind of lecture in a University.

Here in France, religion is for the weak.

So is it a case of you live there by choice because of this, or is the reality more than you live there because you were born there and are too poor to move to a more enlightened and free thinking country? One where debate on a subject is allowed? :dozey:

so as i understand it...you're talking about debates in general but as the same time getting all defensive about the right of invented beliefs to be worthy of debating.

if your talking in general...well no shit Sherlock, obviously debating a subject is good. but it all comes crashing into a wall when you involve religion into this. (i'm referring specifically to theories/dogmas about our origin which is the focus of this thread)

 

[Jintor]

Religion has zero place in a science lab.

 

[PvtRyan]

Why are you running to 'creationsim'? I'm not even remotely talking about religion or the allegorical beliefs of any religious group as justified argument. Fact of the matter is the absolutes of how the universe came into being aren't remotely firmly established, merely theorised upon, therefore its not 'off table' as you would have it to consider the possibility that the universes existence was the result of intentional forces (all hail Cthulhu!!!) rather than unintentional forces (it just happened...). THINK for once in your life. :dozey:

So basically, you're talking about something that the rest isn't talking about? Awesome, so why are you in this thread? We're not talking about the possibility of a "higher being" here, but about how the email in Solaris' post is creationism and how it doesn't warrant a debate, as if it were an equally viable theory as evolution. The email is clearly pro-intelligent design (also known as: creationism) and anti-evolution. It's evident that they're not going to debate anything: they've already made up their mind but are trying to get you in bed with Jebus on non-scientific grounds. The event is also organized by a Christian organization.

What part of that email screams "level-headed rational scientific debate" to you? To me, it mostly screams religious propaganda.

And I don't think science talks in any sort of absolutes about the origin of the universe. Can you point me to anything?

You're right though, the option that the universe is created by some higher being is not off the table, but that is all hypothetical for science and there's currently nothing that can be measured in a scientific way that points to it, so why waste your time on considering the possibility until something actually tangible pops up?

 

[Krynn72]

No part of the email screamed "irrational creationism circle jerk" either. To me, it seems like, while certainly not going out of their way for it, they were allowing non-creationists to come in and present their arguments.

 

[Rico]

And really, why are we as a race so eager to assume the universe was even created to begin with? Time is a relative notion unique to human being so far as I can remember, which means that to the universe there could have been NO beginning or NO end.. maybe it's just always there, and always changing.

*shrug*

And yes, that email is idiotic and I find it unbelievable that a science department can send that.

 

[Kadayi]

]first of all he's not running to creationism, he just made an example of what is unworthy of debating.

I'd already moved past Creationism in my earlier post, he went running back to it. The problem is that debate on intelligent design has of late been been hijacked by religious groups. Where as it was the preserve of Philosophers before hand (why are we here, what are we doing, is this intentional? etc, etc). In literature it's been a common stable of Science fiction writers to tackle for many years as well, without recourse to religious promotion. (Check out Quatermass and the pit, fantastic film from the 1950s all about the 'potential' origins of humanity).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sciencea...-life-could-be-created-within-five-years.html

We're not that far off from being creators ourselves. Does that make us gods? I'm not sure. But that we (as unsophisticated as we are) could bring animation to the inanimate outside of nature is a pretty profound thing in my view.

if your talking in general...well no shit Sherlock, obviously debating a subject is good. but it all comes crashing into a wall when you involve religion into this. (i'm referring specifically to theories/dogmas about our origin)

I have zero interest in considering the possibility that the father of the Zombie Jew created the universe in 7 days, or anything else along those lines. However the thought that the universe might have sprung (and I think we're all on board with it certainly sprung ) into existence because of the actions of articulate forces beyond our comprehension isn't something I'm necessarily ready to dismiss though. When Science says jump you might say 'how high?' I say 'Why?' :naughty:

 

[PvtRyan]

No part of the email screamed "irrational creationism circle jerk" either. To me, it seems like, while certainly not going out of their way for it, they were allowing non-creationists to come in and present their arguments.

Actually, it is irrational because there's logical fallacies in the email: like trying to cast doubt about evolution's validity by name dropping some big boys (physicists no less, why physicists?). Well, it would be a rational thing to do if you know you're logically wrong by doing so, but then it would be conscious manipulation which isn't any better.

 

[Kadayi]

You're right though, the option that the universe is created by some higher being is not off the table, but that is all hypothetical for science and there's currently nothing that can be measured in a scientific way that points to it, so why waste your time on considering the possibility until something actually tangible pops up?

Why look at the Stars when you know you'll never reach them? Why bother breathing because your going to die anyway? If the best you can come up with as a response is personal apathy that is your weakness. With an attitude like that we'd have never gotten out of the trees. The whole development of our species has been based on 'what ifs?' :dozey:

Actually, it is irrational because there's logical fallacies in the email: like trying to cast doubt about evolution's validity by name dropping some big boys (physicists no less, why physicists?). Well, it would be a rational thing to do if you know you're logically wrong by doing so, but then it would be conscious manipulation which isn't any better.

Nothing that you've said there still stops it from being a debate at the end of the day.

 

[jverne]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/4974917/Artificial-life-could-be-created-within-five-years.html[/url]

We're not that far off from being creators ourselves. Does that make us gods? I'm not sure. But that we (as unsophisticated as we are) could bring animation to the inanimate outside of nature is a pretty profound thing in my view.

you just made a sharp left turn, but ok, i wont hold a grudge

actually in the ancient times philosophy and religion weren't that distinct from each other.
but ok that's not the topic of this thread nor my point of argument

I have zero interest in considering the possibility that the father of the Zombie Jew created the universe in 7 days, or anything else along those lines. However the thought that the universe might have sprung (and I think we're all on board with it certainly sprung ) into existence because of the actions of articulate forces beyond our comprehension isn't something I'm necessarily ready to dismiss though. When Science says jump you might say 'how high?' I say 'Why?' :naughty:

science never says "jump"...it's the peoples own agenda that does.
i for one don't take science as 100% truth, because i don't entirely believe in perfection or absolutes. but in RL it is as close as you can practically get

but this is not the issue. the point is that i think you're giving religion the credit of being debate worthy. considering how agitated you were when replying to adrian, i'd say you specifically refer to our established religions.
but since you just said you don't even consider the possibility of the Zombie jew's father, then i assume you don't adhere to any particular organized religion, is this correct?

 

[PvtRyan]

Why look at the Stars when you know you'll never reach them? Why bother breathing because your going to die anyway? If the best you can come up with as a response is personal apathy that is your weakness. With an attitude like that we'd have never gotten out of the trees. The whole development of our species has been based on 'what ifs?' :dozey:

What? Seriously, what?

Nothing that you've said there still stops it from being a debate at the end of the day.

There's nothing that stops a football from passing through a solid wall. Except, you know, chance. :dozey:

 

[Kadayi]

actually in the ancient times philosophy and religion weren't that distinct from each other. but ok that's not the topic of this thread

The topic is where it goes. Fact of the matter is someone earlier on made the point about scientific fundamentalism, and were put down about it, but tbh they had a perfectly valid point. A theory is only good until another better theory comes along. Throughout the history of the sciences, theories have been revised or superseded, this is the natural order of things. A theory is always a working model, not an absolute. To therefore to hold that certain areas are beyond discussion is to demonstrate a lack of comprehension of this process.

Science never says "jump"...it's the peoples own agenda that does.
i for one don't take science as 100% truth, because i don't entirely believe in perfection or absolutes. but in RL it is as close as you can practically get

But the dim amongst us can't see the wood for the trees and need reminding of this occasionally.

[but this is not the issue. the point is that i think you're giving religion the credit of being debate worthy. considering how agitated you were when replying to adrian, i'd say you specifically refer to our established religions.

Your interpretation is borne out of the same misconception that others have that intelligence design is a subject that can only be discussed with religious reference. As I said in the earlier post, it's a subject that's been hijacked more recently by religious groups with an agenda, but that in itself doesn't make it 'invalid' in the broader context.

but since you just said you don't even consider the possibility of the Zombie jew's father, then i assume you don't adhere to any particular organized religion, is this correct?

Ya Cthulhu, ya Cthulhu ftagn!
Ya Cthulhu, ya Cthulhu ftagn!!
YA CTHULHU, YA CTHULHU FTAGN!!!

Do you even remotely know me? :dozey:

I fail at life!!!

Indeed you do Dutchie, indeed you do. Back to the cellar with you now. :dozey:

 

[Omnomnick]

Evolution ftw. You sure that girl has actually caught up to where humanity is suppost to be?

Sure she isn't some kind of bacteria?

 

[Kadayi]

Evolution ftw. You sure that girl has actually caught up to where humanity is suppost to be?

Sure she isn't some kind of bacteria?

Well her choice in tattoos and Husbands does throw up some questions tbh

 

[jverne]

The topic is where it goes. Fact of the matter is someone earlier on made the point about scientific fundamentalism, and were put down about it, but tbh they had a perfectly valid point. A theory is only good until another better theory comes along. Throughout the history of the sciences, theories have been revised or superseded, this is the natural order of things. A theory is always a working model, not an absolute. To therefore to hold that certain areas are beyond discussion is to demonstrate a lack of comprehension of this process.

ooook

But the dim amongst us can't see the wood for the trees and need reminding of this occasionally.

ook

Your interpretation is borne out of the same misconception that others have that intelligence design is a subject that can only be discussed with religious reference. As I said in the earlier post, it's a subject that's been hijacked more recently by religious groups with an agenda, but that in itself doesn't make it 'invalid' in the broader context.

ok...so considering this is a thread about intelligent design (probably religiously oriented) and you specifically getting upset by adrians post (which was about religion), what the hell are we talking about then?

did we switch onto "design by some higher life form"? if that's the case then i apologize for not realizing you changed your mind while not telling anyone.

Ya Cthulhu, ya Cthulhu ftagn!
Ya Cthulhu, ya Cthulhu ftagn!!
YA CTHULHU, YA CTHULHU FTAGN!!!

Do you even remotely know me? :dozey:

actually it's really hard to know you...at every (by every, i mean as an expression not literally) thread criticizing religion you get your panties in a twist. you defend it but at the same time using phrases a Zombie Jew...seriously, what will it be?

 

[Tyguy]

Honestly, that letter makes you look childish.

Why are different ideas so toxic to you? It's not like it hurts you if someone tells you something that is wrong.

He's an aspiring scientist, it hurts him a lot if someone tells him something wrong...cause ya know...it's coming from a school. It also hurt those ladies burned at the stake for being witches. Too bad science couldn't save them

That is why you have to learn to critically analyze ideas for yourself instead of blindly accepting what people tell you.

He needs a foundation of advanced scientific understanding before he can critically analyze anything to his utmost ability, wouldn't you agree? He shouldn't have to question what he is being taught...

Scientific fundamentalism is no different than religious fundamentalism.

What is a scientific fundamentalist? A person holding a sign that reads "gravity is real!"?
Or maybe someone who runs around screaming mathematical equations?

 

[Dan]

The whole point of critical thought and rational endeavor is that you don't start with the preconstructed notions and then go back to find the evidence to back them up. You start with nothing, and then build your own conclusions from the environment around you. Scientific fundamentalism is when people take the conclusions of research and state it as fact. If it is questioned, then you simply appeal to the higher power of "science" or start to wikipedia for the evidence that backs up the conclusion they have already accepted.

I am not saying that these conclusions are wrong, they have assuredly been tested, but the hypocrisy in accepting them first, and then blindly defending them is a perversion of the spirit of the scientific revolution.

Even though modern Western thinking claims to promotes liberty and independent thought, it seems to be biologically determined that the majority of humanity is not capable of critical thought. It probably would be the downfall for society if everyone questioned the norms. I mean, logically, there is no imperative for continued existence besides the fact that only those who are irrationally motivated to continue their existence continue to exist. Everyone else died out.

When I use the term scientific fundamentalism, I am talking about the science replacing religion as the entity that spoon feeds society the structure of the larger environment beyond the immediate senses. No matter what, people will wonder what is over the horizon, and for the most part they will accept the answers given to them by their parents, and their peers. It really makes no immediate difference to you if the Earth is flat or round, your life will go on either way. "Just because" can be as good as any other answer.

It would be impossible to have a perfect understanding of the universe. To some extent, everyone is capable of building up a false image of the universe around them, and continuing to function even in the face of seeming contradiction so long as the contradictions don't seriously harm them. We all probably know somebody who has amazing capabilities of self delusion about their own qualities, appearance, and the causes of all their problems. To claim to be rational and objective, you must question your own delusions constantly.

 

[Raziaar]

There's nothing that stops a football from passing through a solid wall. Except, you know, chance. :dozey:

Is this true though? I thought what is preventing things like that from happening goes down to the molecular level where the atoms are arranged in a specific structure, held together by bonds. Thus sometimes allowing some individual molecules or atoms through, but not always. And certainly larger molecules and atomic structures cannot pass through cleanly unless they physically break the bonds there and sever the area.

Am I wrong in thinking that?

Like, if you had a waterproof material where it formed a lattice so small that water molecules could not physically slip through the gaps, unless that lattice was compromised in some way by being damaged, no amount of chance in the universe could water get through there, as chance isn't a factor.

 

[Tyguy]

When I use the term scientific fundamentalism, I am talking about the science replacing religion as the entity that spoon feeds society the structure of the larger environment beyond the immediate senses.

so scientific facts instead of made up stories are being spoon fed to us...and this bothers you?

 

[Dan]

Is this true though? I thought what is preventing things like that from happening goes down to the molecular level where the atoms are arranged in a specific structure, held together by bonds. Thus sometimes allowing some individual molecules or atoms through, but not always. And certainly larger molecules and atomic structures cannot pass through cleanly unless they physically break the bonds there and sever the area.

Am I wrong in thinking that?

Like, if you had a waterproof material where it formed a lattice so small that water molecules could not physically slip through the gaps, unless that lattice was compromised in some way by being damaged, no amount of chance in the universe could water get through there, as chance isn't a factor.

It's actually a very random structure relative to the macroscopic structure. Nothing that we can macroscopically measure in the properties of a wall or any object will determine the exact positions of the constituent molecules and their constituent atomic particles. There are only properties such as temperature or density that determine probabilities about the structure, and that means that there is always an extremely small probability that the structure will allow a football to pass through it.

In the atomic scale, there is no such thing as solid, or gaps, or a physical lattice, only the relevant forces of attraction and repulsion, predominantly the electromagnetic force. Rather than the macroscopic black and white of solid or not, everything is in shades of grey, and so long as the position of electrons is governed by probability fields, then there is a finite probability, that the electromagnetic forces will align in such a way as to allow strange phemonenon such as the one described.

Of course this is just what I was taught. It may or may not be true

so scientific facts instead of made up stories are being spoon fed to us...and this bothers you?

It bothers me when anyone takes what they are spoon fed first and then closes themselves to everything else. I would hope that people accept the explanations so long as it functions, but are always prepared to compare it to another model and examine the salient differences. I would always argue the ridiculous. My time is not so valuable that I cannot afford to measure out a spoonful for contemplating ideas that seem silly on the surface. My positions are not so entrenched in my identity, that I cannot tolerate the existence of contradicting ideas from others.

 

[Raziaar]

How are there no gaps though? I thought there is huge, cavernous empty space within atoms. And if there is emptiness within, couldn't there be emptiness outside too?

 

[Dan]

How are there no gaps though? I thought there is huge, cavernous empty space within atoms. And if there is emptiness within, couldn't there be emptiness outside too?

I just meant that a "gap" requires something that is not a gap, a boundary somewhere. You can't have a gap if you don't have anything that is "solid", and solid is a purely macroscopic property.

 

[Kadayi]

ok...so considering this is a thread about intelligent design (probably religiously oriented) and you specifically getting upset by adrians post (which was about religion), what the hell are we talking about then?

Upset? You didn't see the potential for humour in what he wrote no? France being the land of liberty & all. :naughty:

did we switch onto "design by some higher life form"? if that's the case then i apologize for not realizing you changed your mind while not telling anyone.

I'd favour 'resultant' over 'designed'. It's entirely possible to accidentally knock over a pot of ink onto a sheet of paper and make a pleasing image. Design implies an intention (concept, components, composition), and it's not really possible to prescribe that to the creation of the universe as a definitive.

actually it's really hard to know you...at every (by every, i mean as an expression not literally) thread criticizing religion you get your panties in a twist. you defend it but at the same time using phrases a Zombie Jew...seriously, what will it be?

I believe in Freedom of expression and the right to discourse above all others. I might not agree with what a lot of things people say or believe, but I'll certainly defend peoples right to discuss them. Likewise if there is an inaccuracy in what they say I'll pursue it ('All Christians are baby eaters!!!' 'All Jews are Vampires!!' etc etc) even if I don't subscribe to their core philosophies. For the record no I don't subscribe to the idea of a Godhead in respect of a divine being (in any way shape or form) who directly oversees us and guides our lives, instigates plagues and demands our unending worship. I've been pretty clear on this innumerable times before and I fail to see the relevance of it (or if I believed the opposite) when it comes to discussing peoples rights to discourse as a point for or against validation of the subject. Regardless of my absence of belief in a 'God' I do find the whole existence of 'life' and the creation of the universe rather fascinating as a subject for consideration however.

It bothers me when anyone takes what they are spoon fed first and then closes themselves to everything else. I would hope that people accept the explanations so long as it functions, but are always prepared to compare it to another model and examine the salient differences. I would always argue the ridiculous. My time is not so valuable that I cannot afford to measure out a spoonful for contemplating ideas that seem silly on the surface. My positions are not so entrenched in my identity, that I cannot tolerate the existence of contradicting ideas from others.

Well said, too many people turn existing scientific theory into absolute fact all too easily. Science is surely always about further exploration, either to further substantiate a theory, build upon it or create a better theory.

 

[kirovman]

I don't think you should judge the lecture until you've actually been along and seen what the content and argument is. The title may just be deliberately provocative in order to attract a larger audience.

 

[jverne]

I'd favour 'resultant' over 'designed'. It's entirely possible to accidentally knock over a pot of ink onto a sheet of paper and make a pleasing image. Design implies an intention (concept, components, composition), and it's not really possible to prescribe that to the creation of the universe as a definitive.

based on

Err.. that doesn't make sense. Fundamentalism demands subjectivity, science strives for objectivity. You can be no more fundamentalist at science than you can be fundamentalist about math.

I find your standpoint to be dangerous, as it implies that creationism is somehow an equal idea, just the "other side of the same coin" while it couldn't be further from it. It also doesn't deserve an open debate, because creationism is not a scientific idea and thus it's not possible to have a scientific debate about it. Just like you can't have a debate between a NASA scientist and a flat-Earth believer. It doesn't adhere to any scientific standards so how can you judge the merits of the idea?

Given the origins of how the universe came to be haven't yet been firmly established then debate is surely still on the cards? Scientific fundamentalism much? I think so. :dozey:

you seem to reply specifically to creationism (which is a religious concept as we know it for most of the part)

it wasn't very clear about what were you really talking about until we pointed it out that you jumped from one concept to another.

I believe in Freedom of expression and the right to discourse above all others. I might not agree with what a lot of things people say or believe, but I'll certainly defend peoples right to discuss them. Likewise if there is an inaccuracy in what they say I'll pursue it ('All Christians are baby eaters!!!' 'All Jews are Vampires!!' etc etc) even if I don't subscribe to their core philosophies. For the record no I don't subscribe to the idea of a Godhead in respect of a divine being (in any way shape or form) who directly oversees us and guides our lives, instigates plagues and demands our unending worship. I've been pretty clear on this innumerable times before and I fail to see the relevance of it (or if I believed the opposite) when it comes to discussing peoples rights to discourse as a point for or against validation of the subject. Regardless of my absence of belief in a 'God' I do find the whole existence of 'life' and the creation of the universe rather fascinating as a subject for consideration however.

so wasting time, money and intellectual sanity arguing whether the earth is 6000 years old (which we already know for at least one century it's far older, proven with different methods) or not is perfectly acceptable and desired?
if you're high and have nothing better to do then in theory, yes. but in reality no.

 

[Xevrex]

I like how whenever posed with the question, "How did God come to be?" or "Who or what created God?" they earnestly reply "He's God, he created himself."

 

[Rabdomin]

Way to start a five page religious debate Solaris >: |

 

[Dan]

I like how whenever posed with the question, "How did God come to be?" or "Who or what created God?" they earnestly reply "He's God, he created himself."

The same question exists for any explanation of the universe, and the simple answer is that there is no reason for anything to come to be. The existence of the universe, created by God or otherwise, or of any self contained system for that matter is arbitrary from an objective point of view outside of that system. It is only from a viewpoint within the system, that existence of anything becomes necessary to maintain the viewpoint. So the reason that the universe came to exist in exactly the way that it is, is that because if it didn't come to exist, you wouldn't be around to ask questions about its existence.

 

[bbson john]

Creationism is not science. Creationism may be an invaluable good belief, but still it holds no scientific value. Creationism and evolution/big bang don't share the same standing. That is it.

The big bang theory explains facts like blue-shift of constellations and background radiation. Creationism just shrugs and says "the god made it that way". That the big bang, where everything, including space-time, came from nothing could be puzzling. Yet, the timeless existence of god and his creation of universe from nothing are more puzzling, problematic and implausible. Moreover, why do the world need a supernatural explanation when scientists already have a naturalistic explanation (Violation of laws of physics is not required for naturalistic explanation). Big bang theory predicts the age of the universe and the infancy of our universe. Creationism predicts nothing but it just shovels old facts into itself.

The same applies on evolution. Evolution explains facts. It explains how my body, from my organelles to my penis, came to be. It explains how the earth's biosphere and interconnecting organisms came to be. But creationism does not. It just says unscientifically and irresponsibly "god created them these ways". Evolution predicts that bacteria will develop drug resistance. It also predict that human chromosomes and that of chimps will show signs of sharing of common ancestry. These predictions later proved to be facts. Creationism, on the other hand, predicts nothing since the beginning.

From this examples, you should see that creationism holds no same position as evolution and big bang.

Simply say, scientific theories came after facts. It is used to explain millions facts. Not even that, scientific theories have their outlooks. They can be used to predict future events and developments. Theories can predict not-yet-known facts. Creationism came before facts. Creationists just disparately try to fit and shove new-found facts into their pre-proposition. And it doesn't do its duty as a theory to predict the outcome of certain whatsoever scenario. (If you say Jesus' return is a prediction; ask yourself, when will it definitely happen and in what circumstances will it happen? If it is just a timeless unconditioned prediction, it failed as a theory.)

Public debate? No. Creationism versus evolution debate had already been held countless times. Each time creationists just try to play words and sentence tricks. I don't think anymore of these tiring debates is needed. Try to search in Youtube for these debates. I suggest the best one that had Kenneth Miller as an evolution proponent.

This does not apply only on biblical creationism, but creationism in any other form.

 

[jet_porkins]

Jesus 'created' everybody? I think you mean God surely?

no, jesus didnt create anyone. god did.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men."*

"...in these last days [God] has spoken to us in His Son...through whom also He made the world."**

"...yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him."***

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For all things were created by Him ((still talking about Christ)), both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him."****

*John 1:1-4
**Hebrews 1:2
***1Corinthians 8:6
****Colossians 1:15-16

You may resume.