Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
oh geez you mean i actually have to like type out the whole web address for google! *homer simpson groan*

hehe

Running short of poindextrose?

[Blackheart]

Lazy sod.

http://www.137.com/137/

Oh and of course:

http://www.physicspost.com/articles.php?articleId=11

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Cirdan
hehe

Running short of poindextrose?

wow obscure simpson reference there!

EDIT: hey the baiting worked! ok so we are working from the theory that the basic components we are familiar with in the universe would be the same. atoms. protons. electrons. etc. but if this constant is off then things get wacky. well how would this make for an infinte number of possible universes. seems fairly confined among types. could that number be any number at all? is any one number favored over another?

oh spose i should finish reading this first before i ask anything else.....

[Blackheart]

An even easier read on Fine Structure Constant (alpha)

http://www.btinternet.com/~ugah174/

And maybe the most accesable

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html

[Blackheart]

". could that number be any number at all? is any one number favored over another?"

Most interesting of all is the indications that alpha could have changed over the history of the universe, indicating that the laws of physics are not quite set in stone, but subject to drift for unknown reasons...

Yes I suppose that if whatever underlying factor determined alpha was changed drastically one might get undifferentiated matter (no sub-atomic or atomic particles), but that's not very interesting. It would be just a plain ol dead universe- a void.

The fact that it (the unknown underlying factor) influences the fine structure and "popping" into "reality" versus "virtual" states for subatomics AND the fact that it has (possibly) changed over the life of the universe would seem to indicate that it has somethign to do with existence in "reality" versus "virtual" existence.

It would seem that it (possibly) is related to the factors underlying the initial expansion...

Well... it might not excite you, but it certainly is exciting to lots of poindexters...

[hectorberlioz]

Ah! but man is incapable of creating morals. Therefore God exists, because he is the only one who could have(and did)created morals. Cirdan.
as to WHY man is incapable. of that later. gotta do other stuff now...

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Sure. Who created God if not man?

Why does God need a creator?

And about morals. You are assuming, I suppose, that genes rule us. Like Insidious Rex believes; am I right?

Originally posted by Blackheart
They can have that viewpoint, it's the behavior that matters.

The viewpoint leads to the behavior, and thus needs to be modified.

Originally posted by Blackheart
Hmm. My problem with this statement is that it skirts a tautology. The only honest statement is that the starting point of the universe is unknown. God may be a form of unknown, but when you place a particular version of a divinity into the zero point, you postulate all manner of conjecture, which still falls back to into the unknown. Which doesn't seem very logical to me.

Your base for this reasoning is that the starting point of the universe is unknown. If the starting point of the universe makes itself known, and teaches us about itself, then your problem is solved. Unless you are in a perpetual state of needing proof, so that you are unwilling to believe anything God says about himself unless he proves it to your satisfaction.

[hectorberlioz]

Why does it seem more probable to some people that god does not exist? i dont(well, i do, but i dont agree) see how thats possible.
why would there be no god? if there is no god humanity therefore does not have a purpose to be where we are. more later...

[Lief Erikson]

Why does it seem more probable to some people that god does not exist? i dont(well, i do, but i dont agree) see how thats possible.

There are a variety of reasons why people think that. But I think that they don't all have to do with Creationism. I think Creationism is also the topic of this thread .

why would there be no god? if there is no god humanity therefore does not have a purpose to be where we are. more later...

No divine purpose, anyway. But it seems to me a somewhat flawed argument, to say that there is a God just because there's no evidence that there isn't one. This thread is also for the evidences that there is one.

These are fine things to bring up, though. I've talked about them before also. It just seems that this is the incorrect thread for them. The issue of morality, though, is one that is useful to discuss in this thread, for it is important as an evidence of God's existence.

[Lief Erikson]

Here's a question I have to pose about morality, for those who don't believe we have souls and free will, but are ruled by our genetic make-up.

If I am completely ruled by genes, then does it not follow that there are certain behaviors I am incapable of doing? What would some examples of these be?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
Ah! but man is incapable of creating morals. Therefore God exists, because he is the only one who could have(and did)created morals. Cirdan.
as to WHY man is incapable. of that later. gotta do other stuff now...

OW! Headache from atrocious logic...

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Here's a question I have to pose about morality, for those who don't believe we have souls and free will, but are ruled by our genetic make-up.

If I am completely ruled by genes, then does it not follow that there are certain behaviors I am incapable of doing? What would some examples of these be?

Please see the "Good and Evil" thread for the painfully long and extremely speculative debate on this subject.

Short answer. The genes allow for the development of morals but do not provide the biological enforcement of them. We don't have a choice about whether we have the ability choose or not.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Blackheart
An even easier read on Fine Structure Constant (alpha)

http://www.btinternet.com/~ugah174/

And maybe the most accesable

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html

Accessible???



For those of us who are not up to this elevated level, try this explanation for laypersons:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

[Rían]

Originally posted by Blackheart
If you don't tolerate that viewpoint, then you are reduced to responding in kind, which makes you into something worse...
They can have that viewpoint, it's the behavior that matters.

So we are to "tolerate" whatever a person thinks? but NOT tolerate certain behaviors?

Then who defines what behaviors we shouldn't tolerate?

For example, I think that a marriage should be between one man and one woman, because I think it is the best for everyone involved. The laws of my country support that, and I will do whatever I can do keep marriage defined that way. Would you call me intolerant?

I believe that homosexual behavior is harmful and wrong; do you call me intolerant?

And as far as the killing example, as Lief pointed out, beliefs will lead to action. I'll reword it and make it more obvious - what about the viewpoint of some people that killing others is ok and it's fine to act on this viewpoint? Shall we tolerate that viewpoint and its associated action?

Not that this is on-topic, but the whole tolerance thing is a real button-pusher for me, because the people that say it the loudest are ones that typically DON'T tolerate MY viewpoints.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
So we are to "tolerate" whatever a person thinks? but NOT tolerate certain behaviors?

Then who defines what behaviors we shouldn't tolerate?

For example, I think that a marriage should be between one man and one woman, because I think it is the best for everyone involved. The laws of my country support that, and I will do whatever I can do keep marriage defined that way. Would you call me intolerant?

I believe that homosexual behavior is harmful and wrong; do you call me intolerant?

And as far as the killing example, as Lief pointed out, beliefs will lead to action. I'll reword it and make it more obvious - what about the viewpoint of some people that killing others is ok and it's fine to act on this viewpoint? Shall we tolerate that viewpoint and its associated action?

Not that this is on-topic, but the whole tolerance thing is a real button-pusher for me, because the people that say it the loudest are ones that typically DON'T tolerate MY viewpoints.

Way, way, way off topic:

As far as marriage goes, it depends. If marriage laws offer civil benefits- tax, inheritance, health insurance etc.- that homosexuals cannot extend to their partners, than, yeah, that's intolerant.

But then, I don't think marriage as such is something that should be recognised by the state- a civil union contract available to any consenting adults should be fine, with marriage as a personal/social/religious ceremony free from government sanction or control.

I believe that people who believe homosexual behavior is harmful and wrong are themselves harmful and wrong; does that make me intolerant?

Killing other people- I agree. No to war, No to capital punishment

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
So we are to "tolerate" whatever a person thinks? but NOT tolerate certain behaviors?

Welcome to America.

Who defines what we will and will not tolerate is a complex heirarchy of juges, magistrates, legislators, and an horde of beaurocrats of all shapes and sizes.

You may believe what you want but it is only if you take actions that punish the gay offenders (like voting for officials that want to ban gay sex by law) that would make one intalerant. If you do nothing , then by definition you are tolerant.

We do tolerate killingr. We call it war and the death penalty (and I throw in abortion, just for you and meat (for the vegetarians).

Tolerance isn't thought, it is action, and that is the key. Are people actively persecuting your viewpoints or are they disagreeing with them.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Here's a question I have to pose about morality, for those who don't believe we have souls and free will, but are ruled by our genetic make-up.

If I am completely ruled by genes, then does it not follow that there are certain behaviors I am incapable of doing? What would some examples of these be?

lets see... running on all fours at 70 mph. squirting ink from a bladder between your legs. flying using only your wings. growing leaves and bark and a root system. smelling with your tongue. breathing under water... shall we go on? genetics is VERY rigid when it comes to the vast majority of living behavior. now if you can do any of these things Ill buy the first round.

[Cirdan]

do the ink thing. that sounds hilarious.

[Blackheart]

Muhahahahaa.

Better than throwing rocks at a hornet's nest.

"but man is incapable of creating morals."

Well this is definately false... Morals arise from long held norms, and humans definately create norms. (although there is interesting evidence into a primate sense of "fairness" which might show some innate tendancies to form norms)

______________________________________________

"The viewpoint leads to the behavior, and thus needs to be modified."

AND

"the whole tolerance thing is a real button-pusher for me, because the people that say it the loudest are ones that typically DON'T tolerate MY viewpoints."

Thank you Mr. Orwell. The real reason we have to tolerate viewpoints is NOT because they don't lead to certain kinds of behavior. Certainly they do sometimes. It's because it's a much more heinous behavior to stifle individual thought.

But sure, if you think we need re-education camps, political officers, and thought police, go right ahead....

That's the reason why criminal justice is based on behavior (or SHOULD be) I can't deprive someone of their right to think about smacking the hell out of you. But if they do it, then it's another matter.
__________________________________________________ __


"Then who defines what behaviors we shouldn't tolerate?"

The broad answer to this is society. You know, all those "norms" and "morals".

In our society, we have a codified legal system that does this. Like all human systems it is imperfect. However it is less imperfect, because it is codified, which means that there is a reference point to keep us from wandering too far afield.

I personally like John Stuart Mill's view that an individual is free to do what they will until it infinges upon another person's ability to do what they will.

I can think about all kinds of lewd and lacivious, licentious behaviors I would do to someone. If I find someone who agrees to these behaviors, I haven't violated anyone's right to do what they will. If I however try to force them on someone, I have.

Certainly there are all kinds of caveats, such as screwing on your neighbor's front lawn (or possibly even your own) violates someone's will not to be exposed to such sights, but on the whole that's why our society should be protective of individual privacy. Privacy equals freedom in many respects.
_________________________________________

Very nice link Mouser- anthropic principle is the underlying thought behind most ID theories
_____________________

Also one last on topic thought.

The issue of whether or not god exists is not directly germane to the discussion of creationism versus evolution.

Evolution or creationism are possible cosmological views whether or not a supreme being exists...

It's quite possible for beings of less than a supreme order to have created a universe. It's also quite possible they would have used evolutionary techniques to do so.

It's also possible that the universe evolved all on it's own. It's also possible that the universe randomly popped into existence 5 minutes ago with all our memories of past life intact and in place.

Some of these scenarios are more or less likely, but that doesn't mean that they are impossible. So no, I don't see ithe existence of god as directly neccesary either way as far as the topic goes.

[Rían]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Way, way, way off topic:

No kidding! but hey, BB started it - neener neener!

Originally posted by Blackheart
Better than throwing rocks at a hornet's nest.

Yes; fun, isn't it?

So to keep the OT stuff short, I'll just try to summarize:

I certainly got the answers I expected . So I'm intolerant, according to those that answered. Interesting ... and illogical and inconsistent, BTW.

GrayMouser - why stop at homosexual marriage benefits? Why not include multiple partner marriages, marriages between people and animals, marriages between toddlers, marriages between people and inanimate objects, etc? I'm not in any way looking down on homosexuals, and don't you DARE accuse me of that - I defy you to find anywhere in any of my posts where I speak of homosexuals with anything but compassion and dignity! But a marriage, IMO, should be between one man and one woman, because that is the BEST for everyone involved - that's my opinion, and if you want to accuse me of being intolerant for holding that opinion, then you're intolerant, too. It's the same logic. IOW, there is no LOGICAL reason to expand the def'n of marriage to include 2 homosexuals, but then decide to stop it at that.

Cirdan - yes, people are actively persecuting my viewpoints for example, trying to pass laws that 2 men can marry, or 2 women can marry, when I feel very strongly that it would be terribly harmful to them and to those around them. And that's just one example. See? I'm a victim of intolerance, acc'd to your standard.

Blackheart - as far as the thought police, I"m not sure if you were referring to me or not, since you had quotes from 2 different people - as far as I'm concerned, I'm all for people thinking things out, as you would know if you've read the Offshoot thread. I think many people don't think thru the viewpoints they hold, and they SHOULD. I agree that it's the behavior that should be subject to legislation. And I can't, as you say, deprive someone of their right (nor would I want to) to think certain things (altho I would like to discuss it with them and try to show them where I think they're wrong, just like they would like to show me where they think I'm wrong). But I can certainly have my well-considered opinions on what kinds of BEHAVIORS are good and beneficial (right? RIGHT? or are you gonna call me intolerant? ), and one of my opinions is that homosexual BEHAVIOR is harmful) and should not be supported/encouraged by legislation that says a union between 2 men or 2 women is the same as a marriage between a man and a woman. And you're intolerant if you say I'm intolerant, right? RIGHT?