Adam was made from the dust of the ground.....

[expos4ever]

Quantum fluctuations. Particles pop into empty space all the time and cancel each other out.

I am aware of quantum fluctuations. However, setting aside evolution for a moment, do you not agree that all "accounts" (descriptions, models, understandings) of reality ultimately contain a central element of mystery? As you correctly observe, the question "who created God?" is a valid one and demonstrates that Christianity (or any other "creational" theology) does not provide a complete description of the world (regardless of the matter of whether that description is correct).

Back to fluctuations. Yes, quantum theory - if I understand it properly in this respect and I think I do - indeed does allow for the creation of matter, space, and time from "nothing." But, I suggest, there is still this question: How can we give an account for the very existence of the principles of quantum mechanics themselves? I suspect all qualified experts would say this is a fundamental mystery.

In short, I think all models (descriptions) of reality ultimately fail to account for the bare fact of the existence of the universe. When we say that quantum theory allows for the creation of the universe from nothing, I think we are engaged in a subtle misrepresentation - one still needs to assume the "existence" of the laws of quantum theory themselves.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see, it's all about the children.

Like I said, maybe some day I'll ask the right question.

In the meantime, on poorly educated Children, did you happen to notice what happened to those Children since they started educating them the right way and took God out of the Schools?

Yes, things actually got better. And you are praising a past illegal act. Are you saying that it is okay to break the law as long as you do it for Jesus?

You were good enough to assume I didn't know the difference between ignorance and stupidity and to educate me on that difference. So, to further that lesson, can you tell me if it's ignorance or stupidity that completely misses the definition of poor education? Which of the two describe the inability to see what is right there in front of one? neither?..only denial? And "common sense" needs to be thrown in here as well just for general purposes.

It was not an assumption. I constantly see that creationists don't know how to use that word correctly. It was a logical deduction based upon the evidence. And since you are the one that is poorly educated here I guess that I will have to tell you that you are still dealing with ignorance on your part. And also since you do not seem to be able to tell right from wrong, and yet do not seem to be stupid again that is ignorance on your part. And yes, you do have quite a bit of denial going on too. It seems that you know far more about your flaws than you let yourself belive.

Today is that future you mention and only 50 or so years into it, and your "well educated" children? you decide if their future is comparatively bleak or not.

The problem is that they are not well educated yet. Yes, violence is down, though it is a complicated issue. And if you don't believe me you can read this:

http://www.cjcj.org/news/6523

It deals with just crimes by black youths, but you will find similar statistics across the board:

"For nearly all serious and minor offenses, including homicide, rates among black teenagers nationally were lower in 2011 than when racial statistics were first collected nationally in 1964. Black youths’ murder arrest rates are considerably lower today than back when Bill Cosby was funny (long, long ago)."

Please note the now awkward Bill Cosby reference.

I should add this:

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition (2 Thessalonians 2:3)

And now that that has been shown to be wrong, not just in the U.S. but markedly in European countries where the European countries with the highest rates of atheism also have the lowest crime rates what do you have to say for your failed quote?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Your incredulity doesn't falsify all the evidence for the big bang.

And? Did you think I expected to change you opinion on the matter? Mine remains the same, just the same...absolutely absurd.

Quantum fluctuations. Particles pop into empty space all the time and cancel each other out.

Saying that means little or nothing...the very reason, as I see it anyway, that you didn't expand on it.

Who created God?

What if I said he always was, or even I don't know? Would that or your inability to show how it all began be enough to stop us both in our tracks? We either move on in spite of both our lack of an answer for that or we don't.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

What if I said he always was, or even I don't know?

If you say God always was, that would be special pleading. I prefer "I don't know" over "god did it" to things I don't understand.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Yes, things actually got better. And you are praising a past illegal act. Are you saying that it is okay to break the law as long as you do it for Jesus?

Something tells me you are stretching something so far I don't have any idea what you mean by that without further explanation. Break what law?

It was not an assumption. I constantly see that creationists don't know how to use that word correctly. It was a logical deduction based upon the evidence. And since you are the one that is poorly educated here I guess that I will have to tell you that you are still dealing with ignorance on your part. And also since you do not seem to be able to tell right from wrong, and yet do not seem to be stupid again that is ignorance on your part. And yes, you do have quite a bit of denial going on too. It seems that you know far more about your flaws than you let yourself belive.

No, it was assumption. should I assume your thoughts are the same as all Atheists? How am I poorly educated, you state that out of thin air as a fact...backing please? because I don't agree with you? or is that just some type of attempt at a come back to vindicate yourself? If you can't see what's going on when it's right in front of you, it's not my fault. Take responsibility and don't blame me.

The problem is that they are not well educated yet. Yes, violence is down, though it is a complicated issue. And if you don't believe me you can read this:

"For nearly all serious and minor offenses, including homicide, rates among black teenagers nationally were lower in 2011 than when racial statistics were first collected nationally in 1964. Black youths’ murder arrest rates are considerably lower today than back when Bill Cosby was funny (long, long ago)."

And now that that has been shown to be wrong, not just in the U.S. but markedly in European countries where the European countries with the highest rates of atheism also have the lowest crime rates what do you have to say for your failed quote?

You missed my point completely, it's the big picture. I'd say look at the world as a whole, but if morality is not a concern, no reason for me to expect one to see that big picture.

 

[HitchSlap]

...but if morality is not a concern, no reason for me to expect one to see that big picture.

Why do think morality is not a concern?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Why do think morality is not a concern?

"If" morality is not a concern.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Something tells me you are stretching something so far I don't have any idea what you mean by that without further explanation. Break what law?

The Constitution is the ultimate law of the land. Teaching religion in schools is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Teaching about religion is still permitted:

https://www.aclu.org/joint-statement-current-law-religion-public-schools

But some religious people take a very dim look at schools that treat their personal religion the same as any other personal religion.

No, it was assumption. should I assume your thoughts are the same as all Atheists? How am I poorly educated, you state that out of thin air as a fact...backing please? because I don't agree with you? or is that just some type of attempt at a come back to vindicate yourself? If you can't see what's going on when it's right in front of you, it's not my fault. Take responsibility and don't blame me.

Wrong again. I explained your error to you. And if you can't understand why and how we know that various stories, let's limit this to the book of Genesis for right now, are myth, then you are poorly educated in the sciences. It is not a matter of agreeing with me or not, it is what the evidence clearly tells us. The problem is that most creationists do not understand the concept of "evidence". They will claim that they do, but then will make bad mistakes that show us their ignorance.

You missed my point completely, it's the big picture. I'd say look at the world as a whole, but if morality is not a concern, no reason for me to expect one to see that big picture.

I am looking at the world as a whole. And violence is more often associated with religion than it is with atheism. And you do not seem to realize that by atheists tend to be more moral than Christians as a whole. You may have some education, but sadly you also have a lot of religious prejudice.

 

[HitchSlap]

"If" morality is not a concern.

Do you think morality is a concern?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you think morality is a concern?

I do believe that Kenny is implying the long since debunked "atheists are not as moral as Christians" claim.

 

[HitchSlap]

I do believe that Kenny is implying the long since debunked "atheists are not as moral as Christians" claim.

I figured, was just giving him the benefit of the doubt. Didn't want to necessarily assume he was actually using this old tired canard.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Your both wrong, no need to play the Poor Me card just yet.. You can put words in my mouth or you can read what I said, exactly as I wrote it and get out of it just what was intended.....your choice.

 

[Hoghead1]

I think I may have previously expressed the opinion that I suspect the real problem here is neither stupidity nor poor education. I read of a study whose results indicated that rejection of man-made global warming did not correlate with education level at all. Surprising to me, but that was the finding.

I suspect the reason why many Christians reject evolution has little to do with their intelligence or their education, but has more to do with a deeply entrenched desire to preserve a "tribal marker": they see rejection of evolution as a way of declaring to the world and to themselves that they are members of a particular group (tribe). And we humans have an intense, arguably evolutionarily-grounded desire to belong to a "tribe". If they give up rejection of evolution, that shakes up their sense of belonging to the "tribe that rejects evolution".

Interesting post. It is certainly true that people will hold to irrational religious beliefs, even if they admit they are, simply because it establishes their identity. Another point to consider is how fundamentalists view God. The classical or traditional Christian model of God as he is in his own nature stressed that God is wholly immutable. And since God doesn't change, then neither can we or the universe, and so there can be no evolution. God is identified primarily with order, with maintaining the status quo.

 

[expos4ever]

The classical or traditional Christian model of God as he is in his own nature stressed that God is wholly immutable. And since God doesn't change, then neither can we or the universe,...

Boy that sounds like odd reasoning. Even if God is immutable, why does it follow that His creation is? Besides, it would have been obvious to even the dullest of minds that the world clearly does change, apart from the specific matter of evolution. And then there is also the intuition that a creative God, capable of creating a dynamic world is a "bigger" God than one who effectively creates a still-life.

I suspect you will reply that such are the pernicious effect of religious ideology - people will believe irrational things like denying the most obvious of facts: that the world does change.

I would add that perhaps people wanted to believe the world was static since, unlike today (at least in modern world), the world was a dangerous place and stability was a highly prized goal.

 

[Hoghead1]

Boy that sounds like odd reasoning. Even if God is immutable, why does it follow that His creation is? Besides, it would have been obvious to even the dullest of minds that the world clearly does change, apart from the specific matter of evolution. And then there is also the intuition that a creative God, capable of creating a dynamic world is a "bigger" God than one who effectively creates a still-life.

I suspect you will reply that such are the pernicious effect of religious ideology - people will believe irrational things like denying the most obvious of facts: that the world does change.

I would add that perhaps people wanted to believe the world was static since, unlike today (at least in modern world), the world was a dangerous place and stability was a highly prized goal.

Well, if God is the creator and does not change, then obviously the universe can't either. Hence, many Christians hold that creation was over, finished on the sixth day. Nothing new can be added.
Going back to ancient Greece, people have always had trouble with the world of time and change. More than one major school of Greek philosophy argued that change and motion were totally impossible. You might want to read about Parmenides and Zeno, who presented his famous paradoxes of motion, to demonstrate that movement was utterly impossible, a mere sensory illusion. Plato viewed the world of time and change as a big illusion, hence evil. The "really real" was a wholly immaterial immutable world. Aristotle introduced the notion of substance. All things are basically substances, which do not change. Their attributes may well change, but not the underlying substance. Substance metaphysics persisted up until the 20th century. Hence, the famous philosopher Spinoza argued that absolutely nothing changes. David Hume, who began questioning the reality of substances, pointed out that no matter how many times a crew may rebuild their ship, they assume it is the same ship. As I just said, today, the whole idea of substance, of a permanent, unchanging, substratum, has largely been dropped. For example, I would argue that that the concept of "self" is a myth. In point of fact the "self" is a name for a society of perishing occasions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nothing new can be added.

Ex nihilo or ex materia?

Perhaps the word "added" is confusing you? or the word "new"?

In your opinion, was the widow of Zarephath supplied with ingredients ex nihilo or ex materia?

 

[expos4ever]

Well, if God is the creator and does not change, then obviously the universe can't either.

But that clearly makes no sense - no clear-thinking person would reason thus.

 

[HitchSlap]

But that clearly makes no sense - no clear-thinking person would reason thus.

Exactly!

 

[lesliedellow]

But that clearly makes no sense - no clear-thinking person would reason thus.

If I remember rightly, Hoghead is into process theology.

 

[BobRyan]

An evidence based, independently verifiable interpretation of reality is as objective as it can get.

Then objectively -

Rocks don't turn into rabbits.

Bacteria do not turn into horses.

observable science tells us that people come from people - and that rabbits come from rabbits.

You would be an atheist that rejects the blind-faith-evolutionism that exists today - and instead admits that he only sees that "people come from people" and only that 'rabbits come from rabbits'.

What is more - we have obserations-in-nature showing us 50,000 generations from 1988 to the year 2010 -- observed generations - in real life - where 'bacteria remain bacteria'.

50,000 generations covers more than 2 million years for humans.

yet in 1/10'th of those generations - blind-faith evolutionism proposes humans evolved into being! But observations in nature tell us - that it is not true at all.