Creationism Versus Evolution

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » November 4, 2004, 3:23 pm

Voronwë wrote:i can't wait for Bible 2.0 that has Grand Unification Theory in it.

Bible 2.0 will feature more realistic violence, updated photorealistic graphics and your actions will have actual consequences on the world around you!

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » November 4, 2004, 3:33 pm

like 'Choose your Own Adventure"? Those were fun books.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » November 4, 2004, 3:53 pm

there was one that had you trapped in a spaceship and i couldnt figure it out.

i always got my body cut in half and died.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » November 4, 2004, 10:26 pm

I had a mean post written up and decided to tone it down a notch. I would just suggest to any of you god fearing folk, look up the lyrics to, or listen to the song "Judith" by A Perfect Circle... You can do either of those two things on their website.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » November 4, 2004, 10:34 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:I had a mean post written up and decided to tone it down a notch. I would just suggest to any of you god fearing folk, look up the lyrics to, or listen to the song "Judith" by A Perfect Circle... You can do either of those two things on their website.

I hate that expression. Why should anyone fear God?

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » November 4, 2004, 10:43 pm

Because if you don't do as he says, he just might lay a holy bitch-slap on that ass. OH WAIT, that train of thought has nothing to do with divine mandate, it's just a scare tactic that the churches use when they make their rules as to how they interpret how you should live your life.. Explain to me again how that makes sense?
How can someone/something fallible like the pope or a church change, or ammend what is supposed to be mandate.. that is ... well... nm.

Sorry, a bit off topic.. but I was triggered.

Markulas · Post by **Markulas** » November 5, 2004, 2:14 am

The bible is the reason that we were drained into accepting a geo-centric for over a thousand years. Blindly accepting the works of Ptolemy and not even allowing investigation to be done is retarded even during the middle ages.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » November 7, 2004, 4:17 am

I honestly thought this would happen in a bible belt state first.

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/11/06 ... index.html

Wisconsin district to teach more than evolution

GRANTSBURG, Wisconsin (AP) -- School officials have revised the science curriculum to allow the teaching of creationism, prompting an outcry from more than 300 educators who urged that the decision be reversed.

Members of Grantsburg's school board believed that a state law governing the teaching of evolution was too restrictive. The science curriculum "should not be totally inclusive of just one scientific theory," said Joni Burgin, superintendent of the district of 1,000 students in northwest Wisconsin.

Last month, when the board examined its science curriculum, language was added calling for "various models/theories" of origin to be incorporated.

The decision provoked more than 300 biology and religious studies faculty members to write a letter last week urging the Grantsburg board to reverse the policy. It follows a letter sent previously by 43 deans at Wisconsin public universities.

"Insisting that teachers teach alternative theories of origin in biology classes takes time away from real learning, confuses some students and is a misuse of limited class time and public funds," said Don Waller, a botanist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Wisconsin law mandates that evolution be taught, but school districts are free to create their own curricular standards, said Joe Donovan, a spokesman for the state Department of Public Instruction.

There have been scattered efforts around the nation for other school boards to adopt similar measures. Last month the Dover Area School Board in Pennsylvania voted to require the teaching of alternative theories to evolution, including "intelligent design" -- the idea that life is too complex to have developed without a creator.

The state education board in Kansas was heavily criticized in 1999 when it deleted most references to evolution. The decision was reversed in 2001.

In March, the Ohio Board of Education narrowly approved a lesson plan that some critics contended opens the door to teaching creationism.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » November 7, 2004, 5:44 am

Shaerra wrote:This IS NOT coincidence. And by the way, it says something about your self esteem to adamantly argue that you are nothing but a hairless ape that started out as less than a slug.

Evolution is nothing but retarded theories supported by circular references.

Where is the proof that God exists?

Spang · Post by **Spang** » November 7, 2004, 7:21 am

where is the proof that we all came from apes?

they're both "theories".

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » November 7, 2004, 10:33 am

Spang wrote:where is the proof that we all came from apes?

they're both "theories".

Yes they are, but the facts show that we shar omething like 98% of the same genes with chimpanzees. Thats pretty close to saying we used to be the same.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » November 7, 2004, 10:38 am

Or that monkeys were one of His first attempts.

Can go eithe way, Lynks.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » November 7, 2004, 11:11 am

Akaran_D wrote:Or that monkeys were one of His first attempts.

Can go eithe way, Lynks.

The body of evidence suggesting that homo sapiens(sapiens) evolved to the species we are today does not hinge on a genetic comparison to other animals: we have an enormous fossil record of bones, tools, etc showing the migration of man across the world and showing a gradual change in the bone structure of man as particular members of the species are selected over others with different traits. You can see the growth in height, the strengthening of the brow ridge, and the increase in skull size change by examining generations of different fossils of our ancestors.

This evidence is reinforced by genetic information. Many of our genes are shared by other species. Many genes in each species are just genetic fossil record themselves: these genes are not used for any function within the body and represent the legacy of an evolving genome. By matching the genetic flotsam and jetsom between different species, you can hazard a guess as to how many common ancestors they share, or by building a timeline with other data you can start to fill in detail about different species family trees.

Our fossil record of early man is reinforced by archeological evidence of where man has been and what man has been doing for the last ten thousand years.

We know, for example, that all modern humans can trace their ancestry to a very small number of ice age people (10,000 years ago, strictly speaking we are still in an ice age, but nm). We have so many genetic disorders and problems with inbreeding because we are basically an inbred species to begin with. This suggests that at the end of the ice age, mankind was on the verge of extinction when the warmer climate immerged and our population exploded for a few survivors.

I could add several paragraphs of detail to this; some directly related to the topic and others interesting side notes like the previous paragraph. I would venture that my knowledge as a layperson is incredibly low. The ignorance of scientific data and what the scientific world actually interprets that to me is astounding amongst the average person. We did not evolve from chimpanzees, and no one has suggested that we have.

I suppose that the creationism supports on this thread would not accept the existence of dinosaurs millions of years before there was mankind? Their existence, also, hinges on the acceptance of fossil record.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » November 7, 2004, 11:16 am

I accept it.
Genisis says everything was created in 7 days. Now, I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure God works ona different schedule than just 24 hours - an ideal that man had. The begining of Genisis deals heavily with the Garden of Eden, and does not deal with the outside areas of it. We do not know what He did in those places, or even how long Eden was in existance before the creation of Adam and Eve.

Simply put: It doesn't tell us that dinosaurs, apes, general theory of evolution could not have taken place. It didn't tell us that it did, either. I say again, it is entirely possible that BOTH the theory of evolution and creationism is correct.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » November 7, 2004, 11:26 am

Akaran_D wrote:Or that monkeys were one of His first attempts.

Can go eithe way, Lynks.

It could, but at this time, it doesn't. There is no proof that supports your theory, only a gut feeling, and tell that to the jury.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » November 7, 2004, 11:29 am

And until you have your 2%, there's nothing that deffinately connects the monkey to the human. You have little more than circumstancial evidence, which isn't much better than a gut feeling.

Though I reference Arch's post above and say that your arguemnt does have validity and could have happened.

Drolgin Steingrinder · November 7, 2004, 1:14 pm

Akaran D wrote:Or that monkeys were one of His first attempts.

Can go eithe way, Lynks.

I'm curious, I always thought God was supposed to be infallible and omniscient - so why would he need more than one attempt at anything?

Come to think of it, being God must be pretty damn boring. Being perfect and infallible doesn't win you a lot of friends - someone who knows the answers to all the Trivial Pursuit questions, clears the pool table in one shot or always gets a straight flush on the first hand dealt has to be a pain in the ass to hang around with.

Vaemas · Post by **Vaemas** » November 7, 2004, 1:31 pm

The thought that I'm descended from two guys is just...

Just...

Where's Drolgin when I need a cuddle.

Drolgin Steingrinder · November 7, 2004, 1:36 pm

^^cuddles

Animalor wrote:
Voronwë wrote:i can't wait for Bible 2.0 that has Grand Unification Theory in it.
Bible 2.0 will feature more realistic violence, updated photorealistic graphics and your actions will have actual consequences on the world around you!

AND A SHPEEDBOAT!

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » November 7, 2004, 3:00 pm

Wow, well I'll add a few things to the drivel. First Darwin's felt his theory showed the glory of God, to have created a world where the animals adapt. Darwin was very religious, which is kinda funny now as somehow someone tossed him on the other side of this frickin fence. Second, fossil records are really hard to dispute, dinosaurs did exist, surely noone grew up in a mayonaise jar and thinks they don't really exist, that it's all a plan to detract from God etc etc blah blah boring bullshitdrivel. Third, the one flaw in the Catholic faith is the concept that God is perfect. Instead think about it as his love is infinite, but that not every experiment he ever does is perfect, that even God makes an occasional mistake and the rest of it actually makes sense. Ohhh yah and God needs the devil, without him we wouldn't need God

Spang · Post by **Spang** » November 7, 2004, 3:29 pm

...that even God makes an occasional mistake...

canada for example.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » November 7, 2004, 4:09 pm

Spang wrote:
...that even God makes an occasional mistake...
canada for example.

Ya, he's kicking himself for putting us next to loud mouth jackasses.

Moonwynd · Post by **Moonwynd** » November 7, 2004, 4:45 pm

Lynks wrote:
Spang wrote:where is the proof that we all came from apes?

they're both "theories".
Yes they are, but the facts show that we shar omething like 98% of the same genes with chimpanzees. Thats pretty close to saying we used to be the same.

We also share a very high percentage of genetic similarities with rodents and pigs...

I had a dual major in college...Geology and Biology. I wanted to get into paleontology so I continued and obtained my Masters. However, after a few years working in groundwater remediation (NOT what I wanted to do) followed by a futile attempt to break into paleontology (NOT as a teacher or museum curator), I wound up in a different field. So the earth sciences are now a very passionate hobby of mine and not a career.

The Creationism vs. Evolution debate was very active when I was in school. It was hard for people to reconcile their faith with their chosen area of study. Quite a few geology students had a very difficult time.

What it boils down to is that both are theories. One theory is backed by scientific study and the other by faith. Debating is healthy but it is often futile when it comes to matters of faith versus science.

As a man of faith as well as someone schooled in science and scientific theories and priciples I have come to accept that there are some things that must be taken on a personal level of faith. I tend to question everything, so my faith has not come easy, but I am comfortable with it now.

Evolution is a theory not scientific fact. Just like faith, it is hard to quantify. If one subscribes to the theory that human beings arose purely from evolution...they do not have enough scientific "proof" to back that theory without question. For example, there are no transition fossils. Look at the fossil record from an evolutionist point of view...it is very incomplete. Also, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that we are in an enclosed system and that energy is always lost not gained. While that is an oversimplified definition..without getting into too much on closed systems and entropy...I will say that it does make sense.

To put it more simply...things do not become better with the passing of time. Everything is degrading to state of decay and chaos...breaking down to the most simple state. This is the main argument against Evolutionary theory. Living organisms do not become more complex...if they did, it would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

However even that point can be argued...and it has been...ad nauseum.

We can then get into the literal versus the figurative translation of The Book of Genesis from the Bible. Hard core Creationists will say that God created the Earth in 6 literal days. The more moderate Creationists will say that a "day" in the Book of Genesis was more than likely not a literal day but a longer period of time...different than what we know call a day. This is often referred to as "Day/Age Theory".

On a personal level, I do believe there is intelligent thought behind our existence. I also believe in a form of evolution...but not a universal form of evolution. I believe that certain organisms have the ability to develop certain traits...to evolve because of environmental factors. By this, I cite the example of the Peppered Moth in 19th century Industrial England. The moth "evolved" and became darker as pollution worsened and grew in England. Lighter colored moths were often eaten by other insects/animals because they could not blend in against the sooty trees and such like the moths that had become darker in color due to the rise in pollution ("industrial melanism").

So I continue to collect fossils, examine strata, hypothosize and theorize. My faith remains my faith and my pursuit for the ultimate truth remains just that...a pursuit for the seemingly unattainable. I theorize that we will all find out the truth a minute after our last breath is drawn.

Respectfully,

Moonwynd

Moonwynd · Post by **Moonwynd** » November 7, 2004, 4:50 pm

Oh, I wanted to add something in reference to that article where those people believe the Earth is truly flat. It is exactly those kind of people that do an extreme disservice to all persons of faith. To blindly believe the Earth is flat when we have definitive proof to the contrary...I am amazed that people like that actually exist.

May the Coriolis Force be with him

VariaVespasa · Post by **VariaVespasa** » November 7, 2004, 5:27 pm

"Also, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that we are in an enclosed system and that energy is always lost not gained. While that is an oversimplified definition..without getting into too much on closed systems and entropy...I will say that it does make sense.

To put it more simply...things do not become better with the passing of time. Everything is degrading to state of decay and chaos...breaking down to the most simple state. This is the main argument against Evolutionary theory. Living organisms do not become more complex...if they did, it would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. "

Cute, but silly. The OVERALL SYSTEM may tend towards loss and decay, but specific bits of the system dont have to in the 'short" term, if they can draw enough energy from other areas. Ladies and gentleman, I give you (Da-da da da Da- DAAAAA!!!)..... The SUN!!!! The solar system as a whole may be losing energy as the sun wantonly radiates it away into space, but we here on earth are doing just fine thanks while we can leach the extra energy we personally need to grow off the sun. You know, daylight, warm sunshine making plants happy, all that kinda stuff. Of course once the sun runs out of fuel we're screwed, but until then we can become more complex to our hearts content. Do try to view the whole picture...

Main arguement against evolution, my ass! Sheesh.

*Hugs*
Varia

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » November 7, 2004, 6:08 pm

Moonwynd wrote:Oh, I wanted to add something in reference to that article where those people believe the Earth is truly flat. It is exactly those kind of people that do an extreme disservice to all persons of faith. To blindly believe the Earth is flat when we have definitive proof to the contrary...I am amazed that people like that actually exist.

May the Coriolis Force be with him

And yet, you did exactly that in your article above.

Drinsic Darkwood · Post by **Drinsic Darkwood** » November 7, 2004, 6:11 pm

I think Moonwynd's drawing a line between theoretical ideas and actual proof. I.e. we can go into space and look at the Earth and obviously realize it's not flat, but we can't go back in time and watch things evolve.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » November 7, 2004, 6:20 pm

He can draw on his etch-a-sketch all he likes, I might refute that you can go into space and look at the earth too.. besides, far easier to look at the moon, the sun, etc..

His contention that entropy disproves evolution is about as valid as the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy passage that at once proves God's existence and makes him disappear in a puff of logic, only far less entertaining.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » November 7, 2004, 6:41 pm

At some point the futility of your argument should become more apparent.

Akanae · Post by **Akanae** » November 7, 2004, 6:45 pm

Next thing shes going to tell us is she has irrefutable evidence the easter bunny exists and we should have been smarter and believed.

Proof of the Easter Bunny, and Tooth Fairy

Rivera Bladestrike · Post by **Rivera Bladestrike** » November 7, 2004, 7:16 pm

Akaran's requiring of more evidence because he still believe the man in the sky created us, right now, I have as much credbility saying that I created us all. Except one thing -- I exist, so I guess I'm more credible in saying that.

Every argument I hear thats for creationism is creative, but still completely off of hearsay and theory, and zero fact behind it. Evolution at least has grounds for a case. 2000 year old book written by men, or legitimate physical evidence in fossils.

Moonwynd · Post by **Moonwynd** » November 7, 2004, 7:22 pm

VariaVespasa wrote:"Also, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that we are in an enclosed system and that energy is always lost not gained. While that is an oversimplified definition..without getting into too much on closed systems and entropy...I will say that it does make sense.

To put it more simply...things do not become better with the passing of time. Everything is degrading to state of decay and chaos...breaking down to the most simple state. This is the main argument against Evolutionary theory. Living organisms do not become more complex...if they did, it would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. "

Cute, but silly. The OVERALL SYSTEM may tend towards loss and decay, but specific bits of the system dont have to in the 'short" term, if they can draw enough energy from other areas. Ladies and gentleman, I give you (Da-da da da Da- DAAAAA!!!)..... The SUN!!!! The solar system as a whole may be losing energy as the sun wantonly radiates it away into space, but we here on earth are doing just fine thanks while we can leach the extra energy we personally need to grow off the sun. You know, daylight, warm sunshine making plants happy, all that kinda stuff. Of course once the sun runs out of fuel we're screwed, but until then we can become more complex to our hearts content. Do try to view the whole picture...

Main arguement against evolution, my ass! Sheesh.

*Hugs*
Varia

Varia, the sun is not a good example to make your argument. The sun is dying...we as a race will be dead long before the sun dies..on it's way to the grave it will devour our small blue dot in the universe...and while you did point this out, your example of the sun does nothing to invalidate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in relation to the current debate.

Everything...and I do mean everything...is dying. And your look at the "short term" is so subjective. What is your definition of the "short term"? I ask this because the argument for evolution depends on a rather large timescale...one equivalent to the geologic timescale. So while the Earth as a system draws energy from the sun, eventually the Earth's time in the Sun will come to an end..as does every thing in the universe. And I am of the opinion that humankind will not destroy the Earth...I do not believe we are able to affect such a change. Hole in the ozone, global warming, acid rain, the harnessing of the atom, diseases, plagues....they may wipe us from the face of the Earth..but the Earth will recover...it always does...in time.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics does stand as a strong debate point in the argument against Evolutionary theory. I did not say it supports Creationism in any way. The argument for the "short term" energy the Earth takes from the Sun in now way demeans the talking point.

And Varia...*Hugs*....you are still one of the nicest people I have ever met in game...even if you like to yank my chain!

Rivera Bladestrike · Post by **Rivera Bladestrike** » November 7, 2004, 7:28 pm

The sun is a great example actually, energy is not created or destroyed, but it rubs off into different types of energy. The sun emits heat and light energy which is converted into other forms once it hits the earth. Life could have started easily with a lightning strike or something that created a chemical reaction when the elements are right. The energy is always there and as long as the situation is right, life can exist. Life began as the simplest forms of single celled organismsm. Now, saying God created that organism is as credible as saying Frankenstein, Dracula, the Eastern Bunny, or Superman did it.

Moonwynd · Post by **Moonwynd** » November 7, 2004, 7:29 pm

Zaelath wrote:He can draw on his etch-a-sketch all he likes, I might refute that you can go into space and look at the earth too.. besides, far easier to look at the moon, the sun, etc..

His contention that entropy disproves evolution is about as valid as the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy passage that at once proves God's existence and makes him disappear in a puff of logic, only far less entertaining.

I never stated that I believed entropy disproves evolution. I was stating the arguing point that entropy in a closed system is a valid debate poing when it comes to the validity of evolutionary theory.

Moonwynd · Post by **Moonwynd** » November 7, 2004, 7:32 pm

Rivera Bladestrike wrote:The sun is a great example actually, energy is not created or destroyed, but it rubs off into different types of energy. The sun emits heat and light energy which is converted into other forms once it hits the earth. Life could have started easily with a lightning strike or something that created a chemical reaction when the elements are right. The energy is always there and as long as the situation is right, life can exist. Life began as the simplest forms of single celled organismsm. Now, saying God created that organism is as credible as saying Frankenstein, Dracula, the Eastern Bunny, or Superman did it.

Eventually energy is always lost in every process. The energy radiating from the Sun to Earth experiences loss before it reaches us. Plants creating energy via photosynthesis gleaned from solar energy...is lost. It is not a 1 to 1 energy conversion. Everything is in a constant state of decay. The short term may see a rise in energy...but taken over the long term...everything is dying...and that is scientific law.

Rivera Bladestrike · Post by **Rivera Bladestrike** » November 7, 2004, 7:49 pm

Thats not exactly what I was arguing. Thats typical bio class for you, what I'm arguing is that the energy is there for life to be created and it doesn't need some mystical force named God that favors man above all to create it.

You're derailing the subject to a biological discussion rather than whether or not creationism is valid. I don't see how the loss of energy has anything to do with how creatures evolve to best suit their environments, which usually produces a more complex organism.

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » November 7, 2004, 9:54 pm

God is a flip flopper like Kerry

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » November 7, 2004, 10:17 pm

Here it is explained by the man himself.

Here is the general view of creationists within the scientific community.

Rasspotari · Post by **Rasspotari** » November 7, 2004, 10:31 pm

Akaran_D wrote:How about option D: Both.
The Bible says it was. The Bible does not explicitly say how. The Bible does not say we were God's first attempt at humans, et al.

It is entirely possible that the theory of evolution AND creationism can exist at thte same time.

it's also entirely possible that i am god and i say you wont go to heaven cuz you voted for the son of satan. but lets stick to what looks plausible huh ?

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » November 7, 2004, 10:39 pm

Who created God, did he just pop out of nowhere? Or did his God create him, in which case, who create that one?

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » November 7, 2004, 10:40 pm

Lynks: Don't know, going to be one of my first questions when I die.
Rass: Much as I have

for ya, that was a fairly catty and uncalled for comment.

If you don't beleive in God, just look around you. How can all this have occured just by chance?

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » November 7, 2004, 10:59 pm

Voronwë wrote:i still refuse to believe Shaerra is actually a woman.

i think that he is a scary dude at an office who took pictures of some attractive woman at his place of employment and used those to cobble into his online persona.

If it took pictures of an attractive woman why didn't it post them?

VariaVespasa · Post by **VariaVespasa** » November 7, 2004, 11:07 pm

The sun is an excellent example- While it lasts (and hasnt enveloped the earth yet, of course), the surface of the earth is running at an energy surplus, giving us the energy to become more complex and run contrary to entropy in that regard. That means entropy is irrelevant on the surface of the earth as long as we continue to get energy from the sun above a certain minimum level (and below a certain maximum). The fact that some energy is lost between the sun and earth, and more is lost in the chemical exchanges powering plants etc, is irrelevant- its still a net gain for the energy available on earth. I have a dollars worth of pennies, that I decide would benefit you more than me, so I decide to mail them to you. It costs me 5 pennies to buy a stamp and envelope (or to generate the conditions required to run the sun). Five more pennies fall out of the envelope on the way to you (lost to space dust etc, although I think its actually a heckuva lot less than that). Forty more pennies are lost as they bounce off your window as the mailman tries to throw them to you (energy radiating back into space from our atmosphere). And finally, 10 more go bye-bye as you convert them to local currency so you can use them (losses during photosynthesis). So of that 100 pennies I sent to you, you only actually wind up with 40. We lost 60% on that exchange. Thats entropy. But YOU personally are richer by 40 pennies. Thats a gain for you, and you can use that gain to pay your rent, and buy yourself new stuff. As long as you keep getting those 40 pennies every so often, youre golden. The sun and solar system is getting screwed on the deal, but you're alright Jack. When the sun dies and stops sending you pennies you wont be able to buy new stuff anymore, and what you have will wear out eventually, and your lifestyle will decay, but until then youre free to grow, evolve etc to your hearts content.

Yes, actually the energy loss is far worse than that in that the sun is mailing pennies in all directions at once, so its actually throwing billions of envelopes of pennies out into space, for that one envelope to randomly reach us, but its still a net gain for US, personally.

"Short" term = about 3/4 of the lifespan of the sun (ie- the time between it getting going as a sun, and the time it eats the planet). Lots and lots of time for life to evolve and grow.

*Hugs*
Varia

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » November 7, 2004, 11:14 pm

Akaran_D wrote:If you don't beleive in God, just look around you. How can all this have occured just by chance?

Your question itself is the wrong one to be asking. To look around you and try and argue that all of this is far too complex to have accidently happened is ridiculous. It took eons to get to this point. Every time you make a decision, conciously or unconciously, it's continuing the process.

Take the bucket of clock parts argument. It's not a matter of shaking the bucket up and getting a clock, it's all about shaking the bucket and having a nut find it's way onto a screw. Then you shake it again until something else clicks into place, and you keep shaking. You'll be shaking for a long time, but eventually progress is made.

Take this post. It's been a million years in the making. Did an omnipotent being cause me to write this message? If so, why does he cause me to write a message arguing his inexistence? A series of events, circumstances, coincidences, accidents, whatever you want to call it, led up to this post being written.

I don't think faith will be able to move forward until it stops trying to codify the world around us and instead focuses on the world within us.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » November 7, 2004, 11:19 pm

Would would he make you make a post questioning his own existance? To influence people around you, to make them think, to make you think.

God knows everything that is going to happen. He made the rules, he loaded the game, we're just players in it. We all have choices that we are going to make in life, ie: free will. But free will isn't so free when you realzie that everything you do is based on experiences you've had. When you look at it, everything that has ever happened to you in your entire life up to any given moment deicdes what, where, and how you will do anything. God knows the choices we will make based on those experiences, and thus, can retain his omniscience while we still have the option[/i[ to do things different, even though he knows and WE know we couldn't.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » November 7, 2004, 11:20 pm

If God knows the choice we make, and "creates" events based on those choices, then really, we don't have free will since its already planned out for us.

Edit: But hey, if you're happy thinking that you have absolutely no say in your future, then gratz I guess.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » November 7, 2004, 11:22 pm

Well I can see why blind faith comes in handy. If I believed that my life was essentially being controlled by some higher being and I was just a pawn in his celestial game, I'd probably want to be deluded with pleasantries and easy answers as well.

I argue that God(s) is evolutions way of making people think!

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » November 7, 2004, 11:32 pm

We have options to do anything we want.
I could go out and get drunk tonight, but I won't /because of something that happened to me a year ago.
Atokal could suddenly become the most popular poster on the boards but he won't /because of something he's done or said in the past.

We really have no choices in life because everything we're ever going to do or have done is based on what has happened to every one of us up to that point in our lives when we make a decision.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » November 7, 2004, 11:37 pm

Akaran_D wrote:We have options to do anything we want.

We really have no choices in life

You're contradicting yourself.

What happens if we did nothing in the past that might have an effect on our decision? Example: Getting married. I've never been married before, but I don't feel like it at this point in my life. Nothing has led me to that decision.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » November 7, 2004, 11:44 pm

Moonwynd wrote:Also, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that we are in an enclosed system and that energy is always lost not gained. While that is an oversimplified definition..without getting into too much on closed systems and entropy...I will say that it does make sense.

To put it more simply...things do not become better with the passing of time. Everything is degrading to state of decay and chaos...breaking down to the most simple state. This is the main argument against Evolutionary theory. Living organisms do not become more complex...if they did, it would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

You haven't the faintest idea of what you are talking about here. The second law of thermodynamics states that you can't finish any physical process (energy exchange) with as much potential (useful) energy as you started with. Put another way, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all systems tend to static ordered, low potential energy states over chaotic high energy ones. You could actually say that the entropy is the tendancy towards quiet order over noisy chaos.

The Second Law has no macro-scale application to biology on the level of evolutionary consideration. First, the environment fails the qualification as a closed system. As Varia pointed out, there is a constant influx of energy from the off of the surface of the planet (geothermal and solar energy). Second, while sugar and protein reactions do obey the second law (read: energy yeilding molecules cannot be recycled for endless energy), biological organisms themselves are not closed systems that would fall under the rules of entropy.

I would further caution that entropy is an observation, much like evolution: it is not a law, per say.

VeeshanVault

Creationism Versus Evolution

Do you believe in the literal word of the bible or Darwins theory of evolution?