Creationism Logical or Illogical?

[CraigD]

…

i reject the idea of intelligent creation because.....

or

i believe there must have been intelligent creation because.....

There needs to be a 3rd option:

I can neither accept or reject intelligent creation, because adequate scientific data about the event in question is unavailable.

 

To paraphrase a famous quote by Wolfgang Pauli “The theory [intelligent creation] isn't even good enough to be wrong,” meaning that it’s doesn’t lend itself to scientific evaluation.

 

Note that it’s important to distinguish the term questor has introduced to this thread, “intelligent creation”, from “intelligent design (ID)” and other ideas associated with ID, such as the idea that evolution is not possible because “unintelligent” DNA cannot acquire new information without the input of an external intelligence. This last hypothesis is, I think, “good enough to be wrong,” and shown by Cladistics and Molecular Biology to be wrong.

 

When it comes to the event of around the beginning of the universe, however (or even if such an event occurred), the scientific evidence, which cannot easily be reproduced with current technology, is far too sparse to conclude with any acceptable level of confidence the absence or presence of the influence of an “engineering intelligence”.

[questor]

Craig, your replies are sensible and undoubtedly reflect your beliefs. you're saying that you don't have evidence to convince you of a creator one way or another. i'm saying that the evidence i have listed does point to creation instead of random occurrence and have asked others to present their evidence to the contrary. so far, no one has offerered any evidence.

[InfiniteNow]

you're saying that you don't have evidence to convince you of a creator one way or another. i'm saying that the evidence i have listed does point to creation instead of random occurrence and have asked others to present their evidence to the contrary. so far, no one has offerered any evidence.

The point is... you are both looking at the same evidence. It's your interpretation, your personal interpretation which points it into any directions.

[Erasmus00]

i'm saying that the evidence i have listed does point to creation instead of random occurrence

 

I have tried to show you that the evidence you present does NOT logically lead to creation. You repeatedly confuse symmetry and repeatability for creation.

-Will

[graham]

Creationism -what is this?

A bundling of all religions?

I'm a christian, not a muslim or buddist.

If I don't believe in muslim teaching does that mean I'm not a creationist?

An -ism is a phenomenum, not a group of people.

Is creationism logical?

No.

Phenomena are not created they evolve.

 

So...

Creationism evolved.

 

Now there's a dycotamy ...eh?

 

Is christianity logical? now that's more like it!

Let's not hide behide a label.

 

Christianity it well logical.

To believe that the whole intricate and perfectly balanced universe sprung out of "thin air" and managed to remain stable for billions of years.

 

That's logic?

 

Oh Yeah.

 

By the way for vacuum fluctuations you need a vacuum.

I mean you need at least 4 dimensions for the vacuum to exist.

Where did they come from eh?

 

When you find out get back to me, but I wont hold my breath.

 

The Big Bang Theory and the Evolution Theory.

 

Notice the use of the word "Theory".

 

There is incomplete proof or they would not be theories they would be fact or at least part fact

 

Notice the use of the words "Incomplete Proof".

 

The fact that alot of people believe the theories does not make them fact.

 

Notice the use of the word "Believe"

 

It takes a leap of faith to believe that this is the truth.

 

Notice the use of the words "Leap of Faith"

 

There.

Now make sense of all that.

[ughaibu]

Are you saying christianity is a theory?

[Stargazer]

1. the actual existence of the universe points to a creator. something had to initiate the BB or whatever process formed the universe.

Why must there even be a cause for the universe as we see it to exist? The mere existence of the universe does not point to a creator.

 

2. order. the universe ehibits order in that there are forces that induce balance and homeostasis ( human and mechanical) throughout the universe. if not for order, chaos would ensue.

What is meant by "order"? And could we really expect to see a universe that is completely random and chaotic on all levels?

 

3. planning. the universe exhibits an overall plan which prevents it from flying apart. everything seems to work in predictable fashion. examples: GR and Quantum

there are natural laws ( many of which we have discovered) that ensure a

stable and predictable outcome for most events.

It does not suggest a "plan" of any kind. Also, we have formulated laws, even though it's doubtful they should be called "laws" at all.

 

4. intelligence exists and we are aware of it. how could intelligence exist unless there was a primal source for it?

Is this an argument that there must be an intelligent creator?

 

5. existence of physical and natural law and math. further evidence of intelligent planning.

Isn't math an invention to use when describing the universe?

 

6. existence of energy and matter and the relationship between the two shows intelligent planning.

Why?

[Pyrotex]

Are you saying christianity is a theory?

It appears that is what he is trying to say.

But we all know that christianity is "just" a religion.

:naughty:

[questor]

Christianity, and all religions, were invented by the mind of man. we have no proof that they are connected in any way to a creator.

putting all religions aside, it is just as logical to believe in a creator as it is to believe in any other of the theories of the origin of the universe. in fact, more arguments may be advanced FOR a creator, than advanced AGAINST

A CREATOR.

[Pyrotex]

...putting all religions aside, it is just as logical to believe in a creator as it is to believe in any other of the theories of the origin of the universe. in fact, more arguments may be advanced FOR a creator, than advanced AGAINST A CREATOR.

Funny. Religion is basically the belief in a deity (yes, I know there are some exceptions), so how can you "set religion aside" and then discuss the existence of one or more all-powerful, all-knowing, invisible, undetectable deities? This is a contradiction in terms.

 

Very funny. Please itemize and count all arguments FOR and AGAINST the existence of a creator and then compare the numbers. As this is patently impossible to do, your statement is plainly silly.

[questor]

this reply shows the inability of many to separate a diety, which is a god figure and invented by the mind of man, and a creator, which would be the force behind creation of the universe and have no relation to man's idea of a diety.

''Funny. Religion is basically the belief in a deity (yes, I know there are some exceptions), so how can you "set religion aside" and then discuss the existence of one or more all-powerful, all-knowing, invisible, undetectable deities? This is a contradiction in terms.''

also:

''Very funny. Please itemize and count all arguments FOR and AGAINST the existence of a creator and then compare the numbers. As this is patently impossible to do, your statement is plainly silly.''

i have on several occasions posted my observations pointing to an intelligent creator and have challenged others to present their observations

to the contrary. as yet, no one has done so. maybe it is to ''silly'' to present this argument.

[Pyrotex]

this reply shows the inability of many to separate a diety, which is a god figure and invented by the mind of man, and a creator, which would be the force behind creation of the universe and have no relation to man's idea of a diety....i have on several occasions posted my observations pointing to an intelligent creator and have challenged others to present their observations to the contrary...

Hello Questor.

Nice to meet you again.

I have seen your observations pointing to an intelligent creator.

I have debated those same points many times over the last ten years.

I don't remember anyone ever staying in "the ring" with me for ten rounds.

Gosh, I'd love to "waltz Matilda" with you, but I'm on an extended break now.

Good luck with the challenge.

[questor]

Hello Pyro, have a nice trip. when you're back we may spar a round or two.

[HydrogenBond]

Creationism is illogical in its current form. If we make a slight rational twist it becomes much more consistent with scientific observation. The way I view genesis is that it is describing the evolution of the human mind. This is consistent with the bible's oldest writings appearing about the time that civilization began to appear, i.e., 7-8K years ago. Humans went from tribal/migratory to developing advanced culture. This happened quite fast and all of a sudden. This transition shows the human mind had taken a major evolutionary turn for the better.

 

The first day the universe was formless and void..., let there be light. In other words, whether through mutation or whatever, a more modern human mind suddenly appeared from the formless void of animal instinct, to become a modern human capable of civilization. The first thing he noticed was day and night being different.

 

The second day the rain in the sky became distinct from the ocean, separating the waters from the waters in his mind. On the third day, the plants began to appear. Up to this time the only plants he noticed were food plants, but all of a sudden trees and flowers became conscious. He was a stranger in paradise.

 

The fouth day the moon and sun become conscious. These become signs of the seasons. Or he begins to notice how they move across the sky and issue in day and night.

 

The fifth day he begins to notice birds flying and fish swinning. He never really noticed this diversity before. The six day he begins to see the animals and even the humans. The humans were the prehumans who had not yet received the light or spark of modern human consciousness. They were from the last ice age and still wandered with the animals engrossed by natural instinct.

 

The story of Cain and Abel is consistent with this theory. Cain was the tiller of the soil and Abel the herder of animals. When Cain kills Abel, farming supersedes nomadic herding.

 

This theory does not have to ignor archeological evidence nor does it need to change even cureent evolutionary theory. It describes a major change in human evolution which led to civilization. If one goes pages further into genesis it tells about the progression of this new light of consciousness.

 

For example, Adam is said to live 1000 years. What this implies was that Adam was the "spirit of the times", for the first millenium as the prehuman minds began to get the new light of hiuman consciousness. Angels mating with the daughters of men to produce giants and the men of renoun describes the birth of mythology. The giants may have included the Titans and and the men of renoun may have included the likes of men like Achilles, etc. They were part of the ancient myth that evolved along side the first human civilizations.

[Celeste]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Creationism is illogical in its current form. If we make a slight rational twist it becomes much more consistent with scientific observation. The way I view genesis is that it is describing the evolution of the human mind. This is consistent with the bible's oldest writings appearing about the time that civilization began to appear, i.e., 7-8K years ago. Humans went from tribal/migratory to developing advanced culture. This happened quite fast and all of a sudden. This transition shows the human mind had taken a major evolutionary turn for the better.

 

The first day the universe was formless and void..., let there be light. In other words, whether through mutation or whatever, a more modern human mind suddenly appeared from the formless void of animal instinct, to become a modern human capable of civilization. The first thing he noticed was day and night being different.

 

The second day the rain in the sky became distinct from the ocean, separating the waters from the waters in his mind. On the third day, the plants began to appear. Up to this time the only plants he noticed were food plants, but all of a sudden trees and flowers became conscious. He was a stranger in paradise.

 

The fouth day the moon and sun become conscious. These become signs of the seasons. Or he begins to notice how they move across the sky and issue in day and night.

 

The fifth day he begins to notice birds flying and fish swinning. He never really noticed this diversity before. The six day he begins to see the animals and even the humans. The humans were the prehumans who had not yet received the light or spark of modern human consciousness. They were from the last ice age and still wandered with the animals engrossed by natural instinct.

 

The story of Cain and Abel is consistent with this theory. Cain was the tiller of the soil and Abel the herder of animals. When Cain kills Abel, farming supersedes nomadic herding.

 

This theory does not have to ignor archeological evidence nor does it need to change even cureent evolutionary theory. It describes a major change in human evolution which led to civilization. If one goes pages further into genesis it tells about the progression of this new light of consciousness.

 

For example, Adam is said to live 1000 years. What this implies was that Adam was the "spirit of the times", for the first millenium as the prehuman minds began to get the new light of hiuman consciousness. Angels mating with the daughters of men to produce giants and the men of renoun describes the birth of mythology. The giants may have included the Titans and and the men of renoun may have included the likes of men like Achilles, etc. They were part of the ancient myth that evolved along side the first human civilizations.

 

:eek: Excellent conjecture.

[ughaibu]

Creation myths tend to predictably reflect the lifestyles of the cultures producing them. I've been told that the pre-Judaic people were nomadic herders, whereas I would've expected the cult of an esturine or marine god as the ancestoral form, on account of the seven days. Can anyone point me to some reliable reading on paleo-Judaica?

[ughaibu]

Questor: This article might interest you: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/causation.html