Groupthink?

[systemstrike_7]

Creationism doesn't need proof, it is proved by the fact that science has failed to explain the existence of life on our unique planet Earth.

This would be true if creationism and evolution by natural selection were the only two possible explanations for life on Earth. While they are the most popular explanations, they aren't the only ones. For creationism, evolution or any explanation to be proved...it needs proof. There's no getting around that.

Evolution might be able to explain the journey, but it says nothing of the beginning.

You're absolutely right. And nor does it try to. The beginning of life falls strictly under the jurisdiction of abiogenesis theory.

The Miller expiriment was a tremendous failure. Miller stacked the deck to get the results he wanted. He created a primitive earth environment that is completely lacking in any scientific backing.

I'm curious to know where you've gotten that idea. Everything I've read about it, from science textbooks to encyclopedia entries, says the experiment was legitimate and that it was a success. Needless to say, I am inclined to trust academically credible* sources over creationist websites. *(You can cite journals and encyclopedias but not creationist websites for college research papers. Unless maybe you attend Liberty University.)

So as you can see, Creationism doesn't carry the burden of proof, rather it is carried by the inability of science to solve this problem without including an Intelligent Designer.

If advocates of intelligent design want their hypothesis to be taken as any kind of scientific theory, they need proof. Intelligent design is not taught in public schools because school boards across our Christian nation have decided there isn't enough evidence. And they are right. Intelligent design is less of a theory in itself than a calculated attack on another theory, evolution.

But I do believe that it should be given as a plausible theory that is given as much credit, if not more, as Evolution.

If it had as much evidence as evolution, I would be happy to give it credit.

I feel so helpless right now, because I gain alot of my information from general reading, rather than ardent study. I must admit I usaully study the Bible, and that's about it. I enjoy reading things concerning science vs Faith, but am lacking in the knowledge needed to supply sufficient answers. I will probably keep my thoughts on these things to myself from now on, seeing as how they never come to any conclusions .

I recently viewed a video called 'Journey Toward Creation' and it basically went through many of the statistical miracles needed to create what we have now. Maybe someday in the future I will have the knowledge to properly comment on such issues. I am certainly not posing to be anyone with superior knowledge in this subject, or any subject concerning science. I'll stick with eschatology from now on

But you guys keep posting! I love reading your discussions. Oh ya, and on the Miller Expiriment, take a look at this and give me your thoughts.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_10.html

[Guest lnj]

And the reality of this relationship is the aboslute 360 turn from old to new in the person. It is stronger than human willpower and is very hard to explain but it is definitely a reality.LNJ

A 360-turn would be a complete revolution, so afterwards you'd still be facing in the same direction.

Yeah you got me there, point to you!! LNJ

[secondeve]

Creationism doesn't need proof, it is proved by the fact that science has failed to explain the existence of life on our unique planet Earth.

This is akin to saying that because science can't explain how life originated on Earth, my belief that aliens came and dropped life-giving spores on the planet is reasonable, intellectual and obvious, even though I can't prove it.

[systemstrike_7]

Well the point I was trying to make was this. If an Intelligent Designer is the only way to explain the creation of our universe, than would it not be logical to think it true? I haven't seen any definitive arguments towards another possibility. The big bang explains the first .00000001 second(or whatever it is) of time, but not the BEGINNING. A creator seems logical to me. Of course we cannot understand how He did it, but should we be able to? God is not just a really smart guy. He is made of different stuff. Stuff we cannot comprehend. Did evolution happen? I don't know....maybe it did. But it had to start somewhere, and with no other logical explanations, this seems best to me: God created what we now inhabit. If aliens inhabited our planet, well this would take us back to "where did the aliens come from?". It has to start somewhere, and so far I haven't heard a good argument against God.

[Guest lnj]

Well the point I was trying to make was this. If an Intelligent Designer is the only way to explain the creation of our universe, than would it not be logical to think it true? I haven't seen any definitive arguments towards another possibility. The big bang explains the first .00000001 second(or whatever it is) of time, but not the BEGINNING. A creator seems logical to me. Of course we cannot understand how He did it, but should we be able to? God is not just a really smart guy. He is made of different stuff. Stuff we cannot comprehend. Did evolution happen? I don't know....maybe it did. But it had to start somewhere, and with no other logical explanations, this seems best to me: God created what we now inhabit. If aliens inhabited our planet, well this would take us back to "where did the aliens come from?". It has to start somewhere, and so far I haven't heard a good argument against God.

Guys'

I know I'm not scientifically minded and you guys have shown that to me, but in order to exist or start, doesn't something have to originate from a single cell? I mean it's all very good to discuss the big bang theory as opposed to Creation by an Intelligent Author...God, but you can't start something without nothing. Right? With the big bang theory, it just honestly doesn't make sense, regardless on how scientific a slant it has. An Intelligent Creator is far more logical because you can see Order in nature and I refuse to believe we evolved from chaos. Just my simple thoughts on the matter! LNJ

[secondeve]

Well the point I was trying to make was this. If an Intelligent Designer is the only way to explain the creation of our universe, than would it not be logical to think it true? I haven't seen any definitive arguments towards another possibility. The big bang explains the first .00000001 second(or whatever it is) of time, but not the BEGINNING. A creator seems logical to me. Of course we cannot understand how He did it, but should we be able to? God is not just a really smart guy. He is made of different stuff. Stuff we cannot comprehend. Did evolution happen? I don't know....maybe it did. But it had to start somewhere, and with no other logical explanations, this seems best to me: God created what we now inhabit. If aliens inhabited our planet, well this would take us back to "where did the aliens come from?". It has to start somewhere, and so far I haven't heard a good argument against God.

Guys'

I know I'm not scientifically minded and you guys have shown that to me, but in order to exist or start, doesn't something have to originate from a single cell? I mean it's all very good to discuss the big bang theory as opposed to Creation by an Intelligent Author...God, but you can't start something without nothing. Right? With the big bang theory, it just honestly doesn't make sense, regardless on how scientific a slant it has. An Intelligent Creator is far more logical because you can see Order in nature and I refuse to believe we evolved from chaos. Just my simple thoughts on the matter! LNJ

God only moves the idea of a 'beginning' back a step - where did God come from? If you believe that God is eternal, without a beginning and without an end, then how is this belief so different from the idea that the universe could similarly be eternal? If God came from nothing, however, then we are saying that one thing in the universe defies our normal concept of physics. And if this is potentially true in the case of God, then why not for the universe?

Have you ever seen one of those Zoom picture books? Basically, you start out with one image. On the next page, the 'camera' has pulled back, allowing you to see the image and its surroundings. Then it pulls back again, and again, and again, until you're so far from where you started that it's a little trippy to watch. Consider the proposal that the Zoom book is like the universe, and each page is a level of perception. Imagine that human perception is on the fourth page. We can see pages one through three, too, but we have no idea about pages five through twelve, even though we can reasonably speculate that they exist. From this point of view, when we look at the universe and try to determine patterns in what we see - whether chaos or order is more dominant, which things are more significant than others - we are essentially incapable of taking everything into account. It could be that, if we were on page twelve, we would draw completely different conclusions as to what is ordered and what is not, what is random and what is not, just as we would do if we were on page one. This is obviously just a thought experiment, but the implication is that when we apply human judgements to universal concepts such as chaos and order, because of where we sit in the scheme of things, we are not as well informed as we would like to be. To us, we see it as ordered that there are male and female, day and night, while compared to the entire universe, these examples might well be completely irrelevant when considering what order is on a bigger scale.

Humans have an idea of what, for us, constitutes order, gleaned from what we see around us. Take, for example, the idea of even numbers of things. Four seasons, two genders. Yet the only reason those numbers are significant is because human beings think they are, not because of any inherent universal symbolism. If we lived on a planet which had five seasons and three genders, we would probably think that other examples of five and three were significant, too, if we saw other things that shared those proportions. So in that sense, certain thoughts about order and chaos and balance are pretty much exclusively dependant on perception, and the point I was trying to make with all of this (in an utterly roundabout way) was that just because we have an idea that things are ordered, does not mean that the significance we attach to these things goes beyond human culture to the extent that it can be explained only by an intelligent creator. And, finally, given that this is a Christian board, I think it should be pointed out that even if we concluded once and for all that an intelligent creator was responsible for the universe, this would not automatically validate Christianity nor any other religion on this planet, because it is hypothetically just as possible that any creator-being could have ceased to exist just after the moment of creation, that they are an impassive observer who requires no worship, that evolution is correct and that the being only put the first organisms on Earth, or even that they are not utterly benevolent towards humans. It certainly means nothing about a heaven or a hell, or even humanity's perception of gods or religions.

[systemstrike_7]

I hate to say it, but I believe that this argument is becoming very circular very quickly. We are arguing about different perceptions we have about the beginning, but this gets us nowhere. I will say that I have no credentials in scientifically debating this issue. Its all a matter of what seems logical to us. Christians believe that God is very logical because we feel his presence all around us. Athiest do not. Are these feelings fake? Who knows...I certainly do not think so, but others might. Christians accept the fact that we cannot understand God being eternal because we are finite beings. I would love nothing more than to understand this, but I honestly cannot and I would be running a blind race if I tried. If later on in time we have some crazy scientific unveiling that explains the beginning then great. Will that change my belief in God? Who knows...I won't be so arrogant as to think I would keep all my faith, but as for now I believe whole-heartedly. And if it were up to me, I would keep believing as I do because I am very happy.

My point is this. I think we are arguing into a brick wall. We have strayed away from science and gone into personal beliefs. It is very difficult to argue on this subject, I would say it is impossible.

[systemstrike_7]

Yes you're right, fake is a bad word to use. And this was exactly my point. Someone else's personal experience will not convince another person. Especially if that other person didn't witness the experience.

But I also believe that for the person who experienced the "whatever it was", they will hold this above science when making their convictions. Science cannot compete with "witnessing the supernatural"; no matter how authentic it may be. If someone is positive they saw bigfoot, they aren't gonna let a Mythbusters persuade them otherwise.

[systemstrike_7]

And thank you.

p.s. I really need to figure out how to control this whole quote thing.

Edited January 4, 2007 by systemstrike_7

[systemstrike_7]

Ummm.... Well this is quite awkward.

I must say that I find it quite necessary to come out of the Christian closet on this forum.

I just recently lost my faith. I had been having trouble with alot of things concerning faith. I watched a video today called "The God Who Wasn't There" and it was the same ole athiest attack on Christianity. Nothing I haven't seen. Well I was thinking while watching and realized that I have been ignoring these arguments, instead of trying to answer them. I would come up with fanciful imaginations that wouldn't get close to being an answer. And I was content....for a while.

I don't know what you have to do to get your thing changed to "nonbeliever" but I guess it should be done. I see no god, I feel no god, and I certainly can't smell one.

Runners High, I just wanted to tell you that you are the one who convinced me that god isn't real....just kidding....I wouldn't give you that much credit. But seriously, I lost faith. I'm kinda shaking right now, but I feel somewhat relieved. I was so blind...so blind...

Once again, I might be wrong about turning to agnostocism(or athiesm or whatever you wanna call it), but the evidence scale has tipped, actually it dropped, and god's side is way up in the air.

Who knows? Maybe I will be "born again" for the millionth time sometime in the near future. But I don't see it happening...of course, I didn't see it happening in the first place, but oh well.