Falsifying Creation

I am not here to prove one or the other to people. I know that people are much to stubborn to believe a faith. The word faith is what makes it religious. The faith is what saves. I am not justifying creationism, I am simply looking for others point or view on the subject. If you really want proof of a creator of some kind, I give you the laws of physics. Besides those you have existance, and matter. Laws imply a law maker. Creations imply a creator. If something must physically exist, if must be created. Evolution is fine and dandy, but where did the single celled organism's environment come from. If you want to answer the big bang, then you must also realize that the big bang cannot make something from nothing, for it goes against the laws of nature. Also matter exists, and therefore must have been created since it could not make itself out of nothing. Thus the only thing that could make this realm with laws is something that does not have to follow the laws itself, aka a creator. Please feel free to point out any mistakes and make any comments

Well, for one, you are assuming that there had to be an intelligent to kick the BB into place. Second of all, when it comes to physics, you are also assuming that there had to be an intelligence to 'design' the rules. Why? THe thing is, assuming an intelligence does not explain how that intelligence got there. To then say this supernatural intelligence is 'eternal' is a special pleading. Why can't the conditions that allowed the BB to occur also be 'eternal' , but without the added complexity of needing intelligence?The words " I do not know" does not imply any deity.

quote:

---

Please feel free to point out any mistakes and make any comments

---

Sure thing. You're main problem is several premises that may be problematic.-

quote:

---

Laws imply a law maker.

---

That may or may not be true; however, since all laws that I know of are human creations, this is moot.Case in point:

quote:

---

I give you the laws of physics.

---

The laws of physics are a human creation. There is a great deal of regularity in nature, and the laws of physics are simply a human description of this regularity. That none of the laws of physics perfectly describe nature (there are always, so far, exceptions and irregularities) may be an indication that the laws of physics are a product of human pattern recognition.-

quote:

---

If something must physically exist, if must be created.

---

This, too, is an usupported assertion. It may be true, but, despite a lot of comment on this very board, it has never really been demonstrated.

---

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

The laws of physics are not human made, they are human discovered. They are absolutes. Also about the big bang, obviously the big band isn't eternal since there had to be a beginning, aka the bang. Anything with a begining by definition cannot be eternal. If you don't believe in the laws of physics being absolute, then you deny the very foundations of science. Obviously something that would have been created must first have created itself, and nothing in our realm of laws can do that. This means that there is a force outside of the laws of the universe. Also to the spagetti monster (sorry about the spelling), Intelligent design is very scientific. If you have read anything about it you would realize that it is nowhere near the scientific level of the figment of your imagination/hunger. The reason intelligent design was never considered is becuase courts refused to hear the case about it because, oh no, it could mean that there is a God! The science never says there is a God, but the science shows that there is, and may I enfore that the SCIENCE does it. Intelligent design science is far more advanced than evolution science, but it isn't being taught due to fear of punishment by the government. This is absurd because science should be taught in a science class, not the watered down theory that shares a fragmented view of existance. If you doubt the scientific relivance of Intelligent design, you are likely among many of the ingnorant people who refuse to listen to what it says. People fear this science because inside they fear the consequences that could arise from accepting that they may be consequences for their actions. Also about the neurology discussion, the human mind is mainly a set of if___, then____ responses. So generally a larger lobe allows more memory to be utilized at a faster pace. If the lobe is disconnected from the body, the ability to think is not nessicarily gone, it just does not connected to the information found in the brain. In otherwords the signal still sends, but the connections don't work. This simply means that although someone might not show brain activity, it does not mean they are not still capable of the base process. Obviously if the disconncection causes their body to no longer function, then there is no doubt you can lose these human exclusive gifts, but that was not the point.

quote:

---

They are absolutes.

---

This is false. The fact that Newton's "Laws" were not absolutes led to the formulation of Quantum Mechanics and General Relatitivty. The fact that Maxwell's Equations were not absolutes led to the formulation of Quantum Electrodynamics.Some of what were regarded as absolute laws were eventually discovered to be non-absolute, and had to be replaced with more accurate "laws". That this has happened many times in the history of science should cause us to be cautious before we deem anything to be an "absolute law".The fact of the matter, what we call "laws" are simply descriptions of regularity that we have observed. However, it has happened many times that phenomena were discovered that did not follow what was previously felt to be an important regularities, and so new descriptions describing a more general regularity had to be formulated.There are some who feel that there are absolute laws of physics, but we have not yet discovered them. That may be the case. I, however, suspect that there are no perfect universal laws -- I suspect that there will always be some sort of small (but existent) exception to any attempt that we make to formulate a physical "law". Certainly, I don't see how it is possible to discount that possibility.

---

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

I'd quote tr373's post, but just scroll up and read it.The laws of Physics are an explination, NOT an absolute. That is the way the universe is, and the laws explain it. If you sit down and think about it(a physics scenario) long and hard enough, it will seem excrutiatingly obvious, and you could have come up with it. To use your example, physics is an if__then__ scenario.And as to your assult on the big bang theory, i don't think you have the right to argue this pont. You are not in any way familiar with the theories or ideas that govern the BB. "Quanton theory holds that a vacuum is subject to quantum uncertainties. This means that at any time things can materialize and dissapear almost instantly. This has been observed indirectly" -Alan Guth, creator of the Inflation theory. The obvious proponent is the law of conservation of energy, of course. "The energy of matter is, however, positive while the energy of a gravitational field is negative. Therefor all matter plus all gravity in the observable universe equals zero. So the universe could come from nothing because it is, fundementally, nothing." There is much, MUCH more, but i can't quote it down. Ill see if i can find the article. ID is not a science, it is a created farce. If there was anything to teach, it would be tought. But instead its hearsay from 2000 years ago, not proveable. If you could teach id, what would you teach? bible, probably. There is no proof, no evidence, no observable fact that has anything to do with ID, so what are you going to teach? The theory of god, written by men? The laws of Creation?And whats with the neurological rant? Way to be wrong. My father's a PhD Neurologist, buddy, i called him for this one. lets see which point were right... oh thats right, none. you say that a disconnection of a lobe causes a body to stop functioning, but is still cabale of it's base processes?! Its the other way around. The lobe, or even the entire brain, may die and the body can be kept alive for years.All you have is unverifiable, unproven specualtion that can never and will never be proven. Edited by Damouse, : Sp

---

-I believe in God, I just call it Nature
-One man with an imaginary friend is insane. a Million men with an imaginary friend is a religion.
-People must often be reminded that the bible did not arrive as a fax from heaven; it was written by men.

Here is the article in it's entirety that explains the Big Bang, supported by evidence. To quote Guth "We no longer have to rely on stories we were told when we were young."Discover Financial Services

That was a fascinating article. Thanks for the link.This is something that might have addressed a long debate in another thread where Robin Rohan had questions about something coming out of nothing: Aside to Robin: Does that fit with your nihilism or not?lfen

Heres some advice, hit enter a few times The "laws" of physics are theories just as any thing in science is, the only reason its a "law" is because the people that formed it thought they were absolutes, they are not then your god isn't eternal since everything has a beginning by your definition your knowlege of science needs work please show any evidence that makes ID scientific and your evidence of this is what? oh wait this is a baseless claim. please point to anything ID can be used for - you know bringing up a untestable, unobservible, undetectible being that we can't pridict does not make science
this is a religious belief, ID is nothing short of religion wearing a lab coat to get its foot in the door - this is creationism at its snake-oil lownessthe rest of this post shows that you have no clue about ID much less science it seems - read more about ID thier new form ignores morality as meaningful to appear less bias - not that it works
ID teaches nothing that ToE and other theories we have already don't

I Forgot something!
America is about 30% aetheist and "other". If we equate that with the courts, then they should be about the same if not all religious (religios people voted them in). Therefor, why would the courts NOT hear the case? Because it proves the god they believe in? Oh, thats right, because it has a lack of credible proof.Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.

---

-I believe in God, I just call it Nature
-One man with an imaginary friend is insane. a Million men with an imaginary friend is a religion.
-People must often be reminded that the bible did not arrive as a fax from heaven; it was written by men.
-Religion is the opiate of the masses

Sorry but that is simply incorrect. Not only have there been many court cases related to ID, in almost all the main opposition to ID or Biblical Creationism has been from Christian groups.Every single major Christian church accepts teaching Evolution and opposes teaching ID or Biblical Cretionism.In the most recent court case, the one in Dover, the ID and Biblical creationist supporter got beat so soundly it was funny. For the first time it was placed in the legal record that the proponents of ID want to define science so broadly that palm reading, phrenology and astrology would qualify as science, and that the proponents of ID and Biblical Creationism lied directly and repeatedly under oath.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Are you sure there is a fundamental difference?
I can't see any other than complexity. Apes are conscious too btw, we know this because if we put an animal which isn't conscious into a room with a mirror, and it's aware of the mirror (this has been done, with monkeys I believe), it'll respond as if to another animal.
Chimps, Gorillas and other apes, respond to it as a reflection of themselves.Consciousness is defined as "the capability for abstraction".
It is an emergent propery of certain physical systems. It only occurs (verifiably) in mammals of a certain size, within certain ratios of brain/body size.
In other words, no single component contains consciousness, only at a certain point does the characteristic emerge.
In other words, a car can only attain speed when it is assembled as a car, but no specific part contains a characteristic called "speed", or anything which directly appraoches it.
Only when the system is assembled, and in motion, does the "speed" characteristic emerge.In cars, the size of the engine, wheel type, break types, gearshift mechanism, all affect the eventual non-material characteristic known as "speed".
In people, the "engine" is the brain, and it's shape and size relative to body mass, all affect the eventual characteristic known as "mind".
(this doesn't imply design tho)
This can be used to predict which animals are more capable of consciouness, and the degree, they should display fairly well.http://home.onemain.com/~dk1008206/html/dolph1.htm
Links to a fairly nice study.I must admit I was surprised to note that Dolphins (generally considered the next most intelligent, in line with predictions from the above theory), have had this intellligence for more than 15 million years, which begs the question, Who exactly was this world designed for if it was designed?
Dolphins seem to have spent more time here, are conscious in very similar ways to us, but they don't fight or sin, and they've sussed all this out before we even arrived!!
And lets not forget they regularly help people lost at sea even tho we kill them, for little or no reason.
Perhaps, they're the ones who got it right, and followed God's laws!?!
Or maybe we all just evolved, and this is simply where we are now.Another nice link on brain function...
Comparative Mammalian Brain Collections

It is the fundamental difference between us and them

quote:

---

Laws imply a law maker.

---

This is essentially an equivocation, reastign on two different ues of "law". The sorts of laws passed by Parliaments or enacted by Kings are one thing. The underlying rwgularities of nature are quite another. The fact that we use the word "law" for each does not justify equating them.

quote:

---

Creations imply a creator

---

This amounts to begging the question. People refer to "creation" because it was assumed that the universe was created. However that does not make that assumption any less of an assumption.

quote:

---

If something must physically exist, if must be created.

---

So if I find a pebble on the beach, was that created ? How do you know ?
I

Well, it is all ultimately related in a topical sense irrespective of the worldview isn't it?I know that Richard Dawkins of Oxford believes that the moral argument (which is the only possible distinction that is not in kind) is an invention of man. He says there is no such thing as right or wrong, we're all just dancing to our DNA. I assume that he includes the persons evironment into that equation as well, but I cannot say for certain that he addressed it.I cannot deny that we are products of our DNA and environment. We seem to be trapped there. Any prejudice that says that 'this is the direction we need to go' or another is really just meaningless under such a reality.If we are evolving, then it is really just a fight to the finish and the winner takes all. Survival of the fittest. But to suggest that it is 'wrong' to impose morality as many claim religion does, is itself an imposition of morality. The only difference is that one side of the debate actually knows what they're saying, and understands those implications.We are all just dancing to our DNA I guess. Is that what you believe???Well, in that case then how much more profound are Christ's words? John 3: 3,5-7 In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." 5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' ???Intriguing and shocking. Most definitely on topic (discussion and controversy)1 Corinthians 1:17-31
17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. 18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." 20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?I wish to express the most humble gratitude to the administers of this forum for their detication to open dialogue.RobEdited by Rob, : No reason given.

---

Any biters in the stream?