I have been doing a great deal of research lately on atheist/theist theorys and arguments. One of the arguments that never fails to get my attention is the whole creation/evolution debate.

There are two significant points that I would like to lay out for discussion.

First, the creationists have a single "theory" that covers their argument. God did it. All of it. He spoke it all into existence and there it was, fully and perfectly formed. Meanwhile, the atheists cover various specific arguments with one of three different theories: big bang, abiogenesis and evolution (BBAE). These three theories comprise the base of the scientific arguments aimed at knocking a little sense into the creationist "proofs" and "evidences" for their origins beliefs.

Second, it occurred to me that there is a fundamental flaw in the entire argument of creation/evolution. What is the flaw? Glad you asked....

Creation is an argument based on "why". Big bang, abiogenesis and evolution are arguments based on "how". The Christian theory of creation has no mechanism for its creation. It's argument is simply that gos spoke and it was done, without any explanation of how it came about. On the other side, BBAE has no explanation of "why", primarily because "why" is an irrelevant question regarding these theories.

It seems to me that the creationist should embrace scientific research into the origins of our existence because it would "increase their understanding of god."

Isn't that what they really want?

I would like to hear arguments from both atheists and creationists. Sometimes it is difficult to evaluate an idea within ones own framework. Bias creeps in in the form of preconcieved notions and presuppositions. Tell me what your thoughts are. Help me flesh out this idea.

My thoughts go something like this: if creation is the "why" and BBAE Is the "how", then everybody is happy and the argument ends. As an atheist, I am perfectly happy to let the theist tack god onto BBAE if it makes them feel better. I can continue to accept the scientific theories without having to continually argue that creation is a load of crap.

If the creationist wish to say that it was divinely inspired, "designed" or whatever, they are welcome to do so. Perhaps then they could accept teaching BBAE without crying about only teaching one side of the argument. Of course, that would require them to acknowledge that we BBAE believers had it right the whole time...

Quote:It seems to me that the creationist should embrace scientific research into the origins of our existence because it would "increase their understanding of god."

You presuppose that they want to know. They think they already know everything.

(It is written in their stupid-ass book.)

But what's the point of your post unless there are creationists here? Not everyone is interested in science you know, and to nitpick "the Christian theory of creation has no mechanism for its creation" - there's also no known mechanism for the big bang's inception or for abiogenesis. I doubt you'll get any creationists answering, not many Xians are creationists you know...

Thanks for the welcome Aractus!

A couple of things....

While there are no described mechanism that qualify as theories yet, there are several ideas being researched regarding the inception of the big bang. As for abiogenesis, it is my understanding that there are verified theories in place to describe how it COULD occur.

My point is that creation doesnt even attempt to explain how it all came about.

I am not quite sure how to respond to your statement that not many Christians are creationists. If the creationists aren't Christians, what are they?

(January 12, 2013 at 3:12 am)Baalzebutt Wrote: While there are no described mechanism that qualify as theories yet, there are several ideas being researched regarding the inception of the big bang. As for abiogenesis, it is my understanding that there are verified theories in place to describe how it COULD occur.

Yes, but there's gaps in the theory, which represent the cogs of the machine being absent. You can't expect amino acids to arrange themselves into genetic material on their own, there has to be a mechanism in place that allows it, and we don't yet know what that mechanism is. Although I agree that life self-starts, there really isn't a solid theory behind it, and you can't leave it to "chance". Random chance didn't produce life on this planet. I expect there is a reliable mechanism that does it, but admit I don't know what it is.

Quote:I am not quite sure how to respond to your statement that not many Christians are creationists. If the creationists aren't Christians, what are they?

The Bible, like any book, can be very literal and also non-literal. Genesis 1 serves the purpose that YHVH is the sole creator of the universe, and everything in it. Pagan religions at the time had multiple gods who controlled specific things, but the ancient Hebrew people had, and have always had, just one God.

Humans ask why questions.

...whats wrong with us?

(January 12, 2013 at 4:48 am)Lion IRC Wrote: Humans ask why questions.

...whats wrong with us?

Shit happens.

Theists like to shoehorn in purpose where none exists.
A child will say things like "Fish live in the sea therefore the purpose of the sea is to give fish a place to live" and this is a perfect fit for the theists view point.

Sometimes the "why" question is given too much importance.

No purpose? LOL


Ah 1, ah2, 1,2,3,4.

Quote:Well, I used to smile when I was a pup,
Sailing down the Nile in China cup,
With the recipe for a lovely day
Sticking out my back pocket.

(...that's it, kids!)

...but it wasn't always such a pretty sight,
We used to fight like cats and dogs
Till me made it up in the ballroom.

Ballroom dancing, made a man of me,
One, two, three, four,
I just plain adore your
Ballroom dancing, seen it on tv
I got what I got from ballroom dancing.
Big b.d.

Here we go!

Ballrooom Dancing - Paul McCartney (Give My Regards to Broad Street)
1982 Columbia/CBS (US)

(January 12, 2013 at 8:29 am)Lion IRC Wrote: No purpose? LOL

There is no purpose! deal with it.

(January 12, 2013 at 3:51 am)Aractus Wrote: The Bible, like any book, can be very literal and also non-literal. Genesis 1 serves the purpose that YHVH is the sole creator of the universe, and everything in it.

Well the old book is off to a great start isn't? Matter and Energy cannot be created or destroyed, physics mate, therefore magic man did sod all.

Quote:Pagan religions at the time had multiple gods who controlled specific things, but the ancient Hebrew people had, and have always had, just one God.

They pretty much ripped off god concepts that predated it.

You may find these videos insightful perhaps?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPfFx9JTQl8