A Creationists View of Dinosaurs and the Theory of Evolution

[Cerpin Taxt]

If you trace all movement back there has to be something that moved but was not itself moved.

No, there doesn't.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

But then this kinda begs the question: "if God did jump start life, why doesn't he want us to at least know he did it?".

Perhaps he wants us to stop investing in churches and invest more in science, as I posited above, so that we can discover the true majesty of the universe he created, and not be stuck in petty infighting over whose God throws the best after party? We can't really know.

I mean, any intelligent being takes and, quite frankly, deserves credit for his handiwork.

Why? Because it's what we, as humans living in Western society, desire? How can we possibly purport to know that God wants us to recognize him? As another poster opined, what if we're just a petri dish in his lab? Does a scientist demand his bacteria cultures recognize the lengths he's gone to to cultivate them? Seeking recognition for achievements is not a universal constant, no matter how much we might think of it as such.

I agree with you that a God that only exists for the threat of punishment is not worthy of worship.

 

[lxskllr]

Fossils.
Archeology.
Geological Strata.

 

[Gibsons]

DNA and proteins had to have been formed/created at the same time.

Nope.

 

[Slammy1]

No, there doesn't.

What an elegant, detailed solution to a philosophical question unresolved since Aristotle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover

You must be a super geneyus.

 

[sandorski]

Uhh, I did not see that until you pointed it out.

 

[WelshBloke]

What an elegant, detailed solution to a philosophical question unresolved since Aristotle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover

You must be a super geneyus.

Ancient Greek philosophical theories don't necessarily have anything to do with the physical world and how it actually works.

You can run away and I'll fire an arrow at your back to test it out if you want to?

 

[Slammy1]

Ancient Greek philosophical theories don't necessarily have anything to do with the physical world and how it actually works.

You can run away and I'll fire an arrow at your back to test it out if you want to?

That's not an argument against the unmoved mover, which is a thought experiment. It's a question of faith and speculation on your part that the solution to the question will be purely scientific.

How is an arrow refuting Aristotelian physics? Have you ever studied physics?

 

[AViking]

If you're trying to argue your faith based beliefs on an internet board you have a problem. It's faith. There's no evidence to support it. It's your personal belief and you shouldn't require that others believe it for your faith to hold strong.

Seriously some of you need to just take a basic biology course so that you know wtf you're talking about and then keep your faith separate from science and the scientific method.

 

[Slammy1]

<- 2 years of grad school in applied physics.

What are your credentials?

No one wants to argue the points, just attack the person? Shocking!

EDIT: Einstein believed in God.

EDIT2: I have to go to work, so I won't be able to stick around to educate you on thinking for yourselves and not blindly accepting what people tell you. That's what you should argue, not that religion is bad or stupid. Too many scientific zealots in the world, I think I prefer the rational believer.

 

[sandorski]

<- 2 years of grad school in applied physics.

What are your credentials?

No one wants to argue the points, just attack the person? Shocking!

EDIT: Einstein believed in God.

EDIT2: I have to go to work, so I won't be able to stick around to educate you on thinking for yourselves and not blindly accepting what people tell you. That's what you should argue, not that religion is bad or stupid. Too many scientific zealots in the world, I think I prefer the rational believer.

Explain.

 

[IronWing]

<- 2 years of grad school in applied physics.

How does this background qualify you to speak authoritatively on ambiogenesis or evolution?

 

[NikolaeVarius]

EDIT: Einstein believed in God.

No he didn't. He HATED when people said that he believed/disbelieved in God.
At worst he was a type of Agnostic.

 

[Fritzo]

<- 2 years of grad school in applied physics.

What are your credentials?

No one wants to argue the points, just attack the person? Shocking!

EDIT: Einstein believed in God.

EDIT2: I have to go to work, so I won't be able to stick around to educate you on thinking for yourselves and not blindly accepting what people tell you. That's what you should argue, not that religion is bad or stupid. Too many scientific zealots in the world, I think I prefer the rational believer.

Belief in God tends to be a placeholder until we understand something.

At first, we thought God controlled the weather and environment. Now we know about thermal pockets and patterns caused by various factors. Then we thought god created the earth. Now we know it was created through accretion of materials left over from a supernova explosion. Then we thought god created the galaxy (which until about 80 years we thought was the whole universe). Now we know the galaxy was formed by gravitational attraction, most likely built up starting with a super massive black hole. Now we're to the point where God created the universe...and we actually have models that explain what happened in the universe trillionths of a second after it's formation. If we get to the point where we can explain the fraction of a second BEFORE the universe was created, God will be pushed back yet again. We currently believe that our universe is part of a "multiverse",and we actually have some evidence suggesting that our universe was formed when two or more "universe bubbles" crashed into each other. These universes each have their own laws of physics, and it just so happens that we live in one where gravity is weak enough to allow particles to bond into complex molecules and we can exist.

Now, did a supreme being create the multiverse? It's possible, and we may never be able to answer that. My current view of God is he exists....as physics. God is the physical laws of our universe that allowed us to come about.

 

[SlitheryDee]

EDIT: Einstein believed in God.

"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems." ~Einstein

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it". ~Einstein

"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve." ~Einstein

""My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." ~Einstein


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein#cite_note-8

 

[Juddog]

Belief in God tends to be a placeholder until we understand something.

At first, we thought God controlled the weather and environment. Now we know about thermal pockets and patterns caused by various factors. Then we thought god created the earth. Now we know it was created through accretion of materials left over from a supernova explosion. Then we thought god created the galaxy (which until about 80 years we thought was the whole universe). Now we know the galaxy was formed by gravitational attraction, most likely built up starting with a super massive black hole. Now we're to the point where God created the universe...and we actually have models that explain what happened in the universe trillionths of a second after it's formation. If we get to the point where we can explain the fraction of a second BEFORE the universe was created, God will be pushed back yet again. We currently believe that our universe is part of a "multiverse",and we actually have some evidence suggesting that our universe was formed when two or more "universe bubbles" crashed into each other. These universes each have their own laws of physics, and it just so happens that we live in one where gravity is weak enough to allow particles to bond into complex molecules and we can exist.

Now, did a supreme being create the multiverse? It's possible, and we may never be able to answer that. My current view of God is he exists....as physics. God is the physical laws of our universe that allowed us to come about.

That's the classic "god of the gaps" idea; where "God did it" replaces the pieces of knowledge that we don't know about.

Some are even saying now that the "God particle" equates God being spread across the entire universe as Higgs-Boson particles. This idea goes along with what someone was saying in a different thread about their wife thinking that God was basically the "fabric" of the universe itself.

At that point, if God is simply the universe itself, the idea of God no longer conforms with what was presented in any of the holy scriptures of any of the major religions, and you might as well just say "I worship the universe because it exists all around me".

 

[alkemyst]

That's the classic "god of the gaps" idea; where "God did it" replaces the pieces of knowledge that we don't know about.

Some are even saying now that the "God particle" equates God being spread across the entire universe as Higgs-Boson particles. This idea goes along with what someone was saying in a different thread about their wife thinking that God was basically the "fabric" of the universe itself.

At that point, if God is simply the universe itself, the idea of God no longer conforms with what was presented in any of the holy scriptures of any of the major religions, and you might as well just say "I worship the universe because it exists all around me".

The problem is really in none of any holy book is God ever said as being anything like a human. Some of the prophets have taken on human form, but that is not God.

When God has spoken to people in various books, it was never to be literally taken as voice communication.

Many people simply don't understand their own books about their God, even fewer understand the politics and history at the various times of that books life and the affects they had on it.

 

[Juddog]

The problem is really in none of any holy book is God ever said as being anything like a human. Some of the prophets have taken on human form, but that is not God.

When God has spoken to people in various books, it was never to be literally taken as voice communication.

Many people simply don't understand their own books about their God, even fewer understand the politics and history at the various times of that books life and the affects they had on it.

The burning bush seemed to be a direct communication.

 

[Fritzo]

That's the classic "god of the gaps" idea; where "God did it" replaces the pieces of knowledge that we don't know about.

Some are even saying now that the "God particle" equates God being spread across the entire universe as Higgs-Boson particles. This idea goes along with what someone was saying in a different thread about their wife thinking that God was basically the "fabric" of the universe itself.

At that point, if God is simply the universe itself, the idea of God no longer conforms with what was presented in any of the holy scriptures of any of the major religions, and you might as well just say "I worship the universe because it exists all around me".

The God particle is misnamed and physicists hate the term. The Higgs boson is what gives matter mass...makes things tangible. It has nothing to actually do with, nor suggest the presence of, a supreme being.

Also, if God is simply "the universe", our brains are part of what makes it sentient...so you could say all humans are gods.

 

[SlitheryDee]

The problem is really in none of any holy book is God ever said as being anything like a human. Some of the prophets have taken on human form, but that is not God.

When God has spoken to people in various books, it was never to be literally taken as voice communication.

Many people simply don't understand their own books about their God, even fewer understand the politics and history at the various times of that books life and the affects they had on it.

So the possibilities are:

1) Superbeing communicating with people using telepathy

2) schizophrenic people who thought they were hearing voices

Boy that's a tough one. One of those sure isn't more likely than the other one at all...

 

[Fritzo]

The burning bush seemed to be a direct communication.

It could also be the first recorded reference to venereal disease

 

[Fritzo]

So the possibilities are:

1) Superbeing communicating with people using telepathy

2) schizophrenic people who thought they were hearing voices

Boy that's a tough one. One of those sure isn't more likely than the other one at all...

There's a 3rd more likely option: misinterpretation of events and inaccurate or embellished retellings of events. Exaggerating was the original special effect when story telling around a campfire.

 

[Gibsons]

So the possibilities are:

1) Superbeing communicating with people using telepathy

2) schizophrenic people who thought they were hearing voices

Boy that's a tough one. One of those sure isn't more likely than the other one at all...

3) someone made a story up

 

[Ichinisan]

The problem is really in none of any holy book is God ever said as being anything like a human.

It says God made man "in his own image."

And God said: Let us make mankind in our image

 

[Juddog]

The God particle is misnamed and physicists hate the term. The Higgs boson is what gives matter mass...makes things tangible. It has nothing to actually do with, nor suggest the presence of, a supreme being.

Also, if God is simply "the universe", our brains are part of what makes it sentient...so you could say all humans are gods.

I agree; I'm not saying that I think the "God particle" has anything to do with God, or anything of the sort (I'm an atheist), but rather I've seen that view used in various news comments, such as when the announcement was recently made that Peter Higgs and François Englert were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for their discovery.

In regards to your second point, if you go on the assumption that God is the universe itself, then you would be right - our brains would be contributing towards a form of universal sentience.