363839

I never said evolution is not a very high probability.
In fact, I do believe it occurred for our own existence and we'll
continue evolving...into what... I don't know but I suspect machines is our future.
But that does not address the question of what made this all happen.
Is it "just is"? Or is there a creator?

Wildo7

The fact that you phrase the question in terms of "creator" v. "just is" being the only two options reveals a certain level of indoctrination. Throughout history as our consciousness expands, we are forced to redefine questions such as these when often the answer is not in line with what we asked. For example, before we understood evolution the question was "were we created or is it just random?" We now know that the actual answer is neither of those things.

We don't even yet know how to ask the question of existence and some portend to have the answer based solely on mythology and the shortcomings of human consciousness. To posit that there is a God in the manner that religions designate him is not only shortsighted but contradictory to an objective view of the random, chaotic, hostile and impersonal nature of life and the universe. God has literally never been the correct answer to questions of science, and I expect this trend to continue.

363839

Not to nitpick here but the theory of evolution was thought of before Darwin came along. 520 BC, in fact.
AboutDarwin.com - Evolution before Darwin
So what exactly is the random theory, anyway?

Atheists have mocked the idea of a superior being or creator as far back as the ancient Greek philosophers. Yet now, science have put forth the idea of the cosmic egg. You know, the one where they say the big bang was initiated by a particle smaller than an atom that held all the energy of the universe and just exploded, creating what we now call our universe. All the energy in the universe. That means all the energy that created all the matter...all the suns and solar systems and all the galaxies and whatever else we haven't discovered were condensed into a particle smaller than an atom...Furthermore there may be other cosmic eggs creating other universes serially connected or taking up the same space as our own universe but on different carrier wavelengths. Some of these universes may not even follow the same laws of physics as our own universe does.
I'm sure you'll say why not. Right!?
I'd even agree with you.
So what is so absurd about the idea of a creator just because we haven't figured it out yet?

crazzycat

Cause we have to believe in something

__________________
Lost in choosing
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
for this forum...

Wildo7

Mista Kool

God is eternal.

Satchboogie3

The whole point of having a God as the "explanation" is to explain where all the matter came from. A lot of the "God" advocates believe that all of the matter in the universe had to come from somewhere, it had to be "created", that it couldn't just exist because it can't be made or destroyed, etc. So their solution is to say God made it. Well WOW. You just made a great argument. That is SO much easier.

So you have to explanations:
1. All the matter in the universe existed as a single, infinitely dense singularity with near infinite potential energy. No complexity, no creation, just a single spec of matter.

2. God, an extremely complex being, created all the matter. So you essential still have explanation 1 here, but you have added an extremely complex creator "being".

#2 is supposed to be the better, simpler answer? Really?

__________________
This is the year. We put our failures in the past, it's a new year, a new defense. It's time to prove to the league that the Patriots are back and aren't going anywhere and they will be the last ones standing in Feb.
Update: Well that didn't work out as I had planned. Next year baby, next year 19-0 we go. Next year.

Nikolai

Hmmm, seems to me you've sufficiently explained away the Christian young-earth garbage (an easy task), but you haven't actually disproved intelligent design. Nor can it be proven with observable facts. The problem with diagnosing intelligent design using scientific method is that one discards a hypothesis by disproving it, not by using facts to support it. So while an atheist or a "god-fearer" might be compelled to compile evidence to support their assertion, that really doesn't mean a whole lot. I cannot think of one thing that would disprove intelligent design, nor can I conjure up an idea of what kind of evidence would support it.

So people can take it on faith or not. Pretty easy.

Synovia

Its impossible to prove something doesn't exist. Theres as much proof for, or against, ID, as there is for, or against, Unicorns.


Intelligent Design isn't a theory because it can't be tested. Its wishcasting.

Nikolai

It appears you're very keen on making this comparison, but I've already demonstrated the fallacy of that assertion. A more accurate example would be a chimera.

Besides ID isn't something that might exist, it is something that might have occurred.

It also appears you also missed the point of my post, which was that ID cannot be proven or disproved.

I also never called it a theory, though the fact that it cannot be proven or disproved with existing evidence does not necessarily negate it as such. To make that assumption demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how theory works.

I would say you should really try to reread my post again.