Is a creationist a creationist because they feel it makes sense?

[atomweaver]

...those who have not learned of Jesus Christ or have never been exposed to the Gospel will have God as their judge.

Where'd you get that viewpoint?

Asserting views is how the world turns (totally a figure of speech).

What do you mean by omnipresence isn't a necessary component to having a point about origins? I don't understand.

From my read of it, your prior comment implied that one could not hold a viewpoint on origins without the benefit of omniscience, be it one's own (as you asked of me) or derivative (as one would assert from the benefit of a religious text and divine inspiration). Simply put, I don't need to know everything, to have what I do know be true...

 

[atomweaver]

Deductive Reasoning. Obviously a pool of Chemicals can't spontaniously create Life without a "Yet to be Explained Force" (e.g. Unknown Variable) or else we'd be seeing it everyday

To put it quite simply, No. Prebiotic Earth was deficient in oxygen. Oxygen is an oxidizer, part of the reason why proteins left on a counter decompose quickly. Also, there is some stong evidence to support the idea that UV light (10x to 30x stronger in prebiotic times, what with little to no atmospheric shield) played a significant role in the formation of early life. You don't ever see the original abiotic event everyday, not because of a Yet To Be Explained Force, but because current atmospheric conditions preclude it from occurring again.

 

[DrkSdBls]

To put it quite simply, No. Prebiotic Earth was deficient in oxygen. Oxygen is an oxidizer, part of the reason why proteins left on a counter decompose quickly. Also, there is some stong evidence to support the idea that UV light (10x to 30x stronger in prebiotic times, what with little to no atmospheric shield) played a significant role in the formation of early life. You don't ever see the original abiotic event everyday, not because of a Yet To Be Explained Force, but because current atmospheric conditions preclude it from occurring again.

To put it quite Simply, no.
(Or should I say yes?) You didn't really argue against my point. Or are you even arguing my point? I'm not quite sure from your post.

Either way, you're only half-right but I won't hold it against you cause so was I.

The Unknown Forces acting apon it also include the one's acting against it too (or, in this particular case, weren't.)

Oxygen acts against it.
UV Light acts against it.
A Butterfly Flapping it's Wings in Japan acts against it!

Any force acting in Negitive ways apon it is still the same as another Force acting positively apon it, which is basicly what I tried to imply. There are many forces acting on every Element of this Universe at all times, all playing a game of Pattleball with our Mollcules and all are variables that ultimately alter the end result. And we are still in the dark about Much of them.

Besides, while the Evidence may Support that the concept that UV light is a Factor of Abiogensis, it is not Positively Varified as to being "The Force" which started the whole March. Don't get me wrong, I'm not discounting it's significance. I'm just willing to admit that it's only one part of a much more complex equation (And I use the word "Equation" only because I know of no Physophical Equivilant.)

You can't use the "It was a Different Atmosphere" card without also Claiming that Science Knows and Understands everything about prebiotic atmospheric conditions. If that was true, then Science could Theoretically Artifically reproduce those same conditions in order to Verify that they know everything they need to in order to produce life.

Simply put, if all the Factors are known, it can be Verified. Since it can not yet be Verified, that leads me to believe that not all the Factors are known (Unless I'm being mislead.)

Which was my point all alone. Not all Data is Known, thus nothing is conceivably Impossible. Improbable certainly but not Impossible.

 

[automan]

Have you ever wondered why most Mormons are from Salt Lake City? and most Muslims are from the middle east?
and most creationists are from America? I can assure you it has absolutely nothing to do with indoctrination, these people have all decided to be what they are for themselves.
The fact that they happened to be brought up in these places and decided to adopt the religions of that area was completely by chance.

By chance? That goes against what you are claiming doesn't it?

Can't you tell when someone is taking the Micky, I have written it as a religious person would write it,
I am really saying all of these people HAVE been indoctrinated,
these people are what they are because of where they were born and it has nothing to do with them,
they did not make a conscious decision to believe in any of these religions, but they will die saying they did
and that it was all their idea.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

But, as for as such entities being "Unnessacary," you'd first have to prove that such entities are truely Unnessacary before making such an Assertion.

Unnecessary simply means that there is an explanation that does not require it. Since there is an explanantion that does not require divinity, divinity is hence unnecessary.

Just because you can reasonably conclude that the Universe could have Formed, as with all Life within it, all on it's own, that doesn't mean that that is how it did happen nor even if it's the most likely possibility.

True. I have never claimed that it is true, but that it is highly probable. How can I make the latter claim? Because I have evidence. In fact, all the evidence points to my claim.
If you have contradictory evidence, please, present it.
Oh, and given the assumption that I reasonably concluded my claim, is this not in itself support for my claims probability?

I'm not saying It didn't nor am I saying that it Did. But you don't yet know exactly what is required for The formation of the Unverse or for Life so to say that God is not required is more of a Belief then a Fact.

I don't disagree with you here. Belief in A is simply thinking that A is true. I believe that deities were not involved with the creation of the universe. I do not know this, and I fully accept the possibility, however remote, that deites were involved.

As a non-mathematician, I don't doubt it.

But hey, you're the one who like's things simple.

There's simple, and then there's removing things without justification. There is a phrase in mathematics: '... without losing generality, ...'. It means that the technique about to be employed will not make the system more specific, or arbitrarily or unjustifiably remove 'unwanted' elements or terms.

Hey. I had a Thought so I ran with it. I was hoping it would have came out a little better then it did. Forgive me if I don't have full Knowledge of a topic I'm talking about but I couldn't just let the thought Slide. The Only way to keep the Mind in Working order is to Excersize it, even if that does mean I'm wrong. I have no fear of Failing.

An admirable trait, but one prone to error.

Which is kind of my point. We know that there is an Equation. We don't know How long it is, what it's composed of, or even if it uses the same Math as we do but part of the whole adventure of life is to discover these things; To learn things we never knew that we never Knew!

How do we know there is an equation? What is this equation modelling?

Deductive Reasoning. Obviously a pool of Chemicals can't spontaniously create Life without a "Yet to be Explained Force" (e.g. Unknown Variable) or else we'd be seeing it everyday (And that Peanut Butter Guy would be more Crediability.) There is most certainly an Unkown Varible (or in all likelyhood, several of them) that cause the building blocks of Life to form in a Pool of Chemicals. Just because it has yet to be observed doesn't mean that it probably doesn't exist.

On the contrary, a pool of chemicals can reasonably give forth life, but only in certain pools' (primordial oceans v peanut butter jars). Indeed, the Miller-Urey experiments, and those following it, have produced 13 of the current 22 amino acids needed for life; don't forget that these are relatively very, very short, and the supposed time-span for the 'real' experiment was ~1 billion years.

Ouch! Harsh! But aren't you taking this a little too personally? It's not like I was trying to Mock you or something.

I was not taking it personally, but I was perhaps being overly harsh. You based all of your arguments on faulty analogy and incorrect terminology. I was merely commenting as such.

 

[atomweaver]

To put it quite Simply, no.
(Or should I say yes?) You didn't really argue against my point. Or are you even arguing my point? I'm not quite sure from your post.

Your point, as I read it, was;

Obviously a pool of Chemicals can't spontaniously create Life without a "Yet to be Explained Force" (e.g. Unknown Variable) or else we'd be seeing it everyday

which is incorrect. The reasons why we don't see life being created everyday is not because of unknown variables. Its because of known variables (mainly, lots of oxygen).

Besides, while the Evidence may Support that the concept that UV light is a Factor of Abiogensis, it is not Positively Varified as to being "The Force" which started the whole March. Don't get me wrong, I'm not discounting it's significance. I'm just willing to admit that it's only one part of a much more complex equation (And I use the word "Equation" only because I know of no Physophical Equivilant.)

Well, I guess we'll see, once a comprehensive abiogenetic theory is established. From most of my readings in abiogenesis research, the answers are nowhere near as complex as most of its detractors would hope...

You can't use the "It was a Different Atmosphere" card without also Claiming that Science Knows and Understands everything about prebiotic atmospheric conditions.

Omniscience again, as a conditional for being able to claim anything with authority. Yeah, I've seen a few people arguing that lately, and its wrong. Not knowing everything about a topic, doesn't automatically invalidate what you do know. Or, are you telling me that you can't claim what you know about God is accurate, because you don't know everything about God..?

If that was true, then Science could Theoretically Artifically reproduce those same conditions in order to Verify that they know everything they need to in order to produce life.

That's pretty much where its headed...

Simply put, if all the Factors are known, it can be Verified. Since it can not yet be Verified, that leads me to believe that not all the Factors are known (Unless I'm being mislead.)

Which was my point all alone. Not all Data is Known, thus nothing is conceivably Impossible. Improbable certainly but not Impossible.

My point was; we know enough about the early Earth, to form a sensible answer to your particular question "why doesn't life spontaneously form all of the time" without appealing to 'Yet To Be Explained Forces' or 'Unknown Variables'. The key variable is known; its oxygen. Simple.
This observation (like any observation)is not invalidated by the fact that we are not omniscient.

 

[DrkSdBls]

Unnecessary simply means that there is an explanation that does not require it. Since there is an explanantion that does not require divinity, divinity is hence unnecessary.

Alright. I'll give you that.

True. I have never claimed that it is true, but that it is highly probable. How can I make the latter claim? Because I have evidence. In fact, all the evidence points to my claim.

Wait a minute. What was this claim again?

If you have contradictory evidence, please, present it.
Oh, and given the assumption that I reasonably concluded my claim, is this not in itself support for my claims probability?

As long as that sticks in your mind everytime you make an assumption, you'll be just fine.

I don't disagree with you here. Belief in A is simply thinking that A is true. I believe that deities were not involved with the creation of the universe. I do not know this, and I fully accept the possibility, however remote, that deites were involved.

Same here but I'm the type who feels that the opposing viewpoint needs to be addressed every so often, regardless of whether it's right or worng (short of Drivel. I don't always succeed.)

There's simple, and then there's removing things without justification. There is a phrase in mathematics: '... without losing generality, ...'. It means that the technique about to be employed will not make the system more specific, or arbitrarily or unjustifiably remove 'unwanted' elements or terms.

True. But I find it hard for me to Balance the Specific and the Simple.

An admirable trait, but one prone to error.

Not a Problem. You learn more from Failure then you do from success.

How do we know there is an equation? What is this equation modelling?

Purhaps the word "Equation" isn't correct but there's a complex system of Cause and Effect throughout the Universe that seams to me to be highly structured and "Equation" is the only word that comes to mind to describe it.

On the contrary, a pool of chemicals can reasonably give forth life, but only in certain pools' (primordial oceans v peanut butter jars). Indeed, the Miller-Urey experiments, and those following it, have produced 13 of the current 22 amino acids needed for life; don't forget that these are relatively very, very short, and the supposed time-span for the 'real' experiment was ~1 billion years.

Quite. But the Pools of Chemicals alone will not produce life themselves. It needs many more factors, many of which we still do not know. That's all I meant.

I was not taking it personally, but I was perhaps being overly harsh. You based all of your arguments on faulty analogy and incorrect terminology. I was merely commenting as such.

Like I said, it sounded better in my head.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Wait a minute. What was this claim again?

You had said: Just because you can reasonably conclude that the Universe could have Formed, as with all Life within it, all on it's own, that doesn't mean that that is how it did happen nor even if it's the most likely possibility.
This was the claim we were discussing. I would, personally, word it differently and less ambiguously, but for all intents and purposes it is an accurate description of one of my beliefs.

As long as that sticks in your mind everytime you make an assumption, you'll be just fine.

Non sequitur. I'm not sure how this response relates to my post.

Same here but I'm the type who feels that the opposing viewpoint needs to be addressed every so often, regardless of whether it's right or worng (short of Drivel. I don't always succeed.)

I must admit, I do this also; I am a great fan of debate. Indeed, if I notice that a particular stance is demonstrateably (sp.) false, then I will most often point this out. However, I would never have the audacity to reject someone's position as impossible when it could, in all possibility, be correct! It is a shame that our opponents do not treat us with such respect.

True. But I find it hard for me to Balance the Specific and the Simple.

Perhaps, then, it is something that I take for granted.

Purhaps the word "Equation" isn't correct but there's a complex system of Cause and Effect throughout the Universe that seams to me to be highly structured and "Equation" is the only word that comes to mind to describe it.

Ah, I see. I would personally use the term 'causal chain', if you are describing what I think you're describing. Perhaps it is the rigours of my mathematical training that make me object to the word 'equation'; it has a very specific meaning to me

Quite. But the Pools of Chemicals alone will not produce life themselves. It needs many more factors, many of which we still do not know. That's all I meant.

I disagree. The pool of chemicals, plus certain atmospheric conditions, would be sufficient to for abiogenesis to occur. As far as I am aware, there is no 'unknown' in our model for the abiogenesis event. But I'll grant you that our knowledge of the event is relatively sparse compared to how we think life evolved thereon out.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I think the real problem is that you have personal evidence that the Christian God exists, but such evidence does nothing to convince anyone but you (and other who believe the same as you) about the existance of the Christian God.

Yes, that was my point.

Just about anyone who believes in a deity (or deities) has personal evidence of that deity's (or those deities') existance. But, as you said, others would not take such personal evidence as proof of the existance of that deity (or those deities) because they have not lived the life of that person.

Again, that was my point.

But you can't very well expect others to take your word that the Christian God exists, even though your personal experiences have led you to know of (believe in) His existance. Anymore than you would take my personal evidence of my deity to be proof of my deity's existance.

Of course, which was my point.

Remember, reality (for you) is what your brain interprets it to be. Because you see the Work of God in, say, a sunset or in the smiling faces of your children (just examples - I don't mean to presume that you do, in fact, feel this way), does not mean that others would, or even could see things that way.

Very true, and one can not from the lack of experiencing another's life assume that it is not real.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You know, for those of us on this forum it's hard to realize and remember that most of humanity never gives much thought to their religion, much less researching every one out there before making their choice.

So are you saying that you think that everyone just is complacent about their religion and never questions anything about it? I tend to doubt that, human beings by nature are inquisitive about everything.

 

[Oncedeceived]

See, this is almost silly. Since many people in this thread do not believe in the existance of the Christian God, they very well cannot take your word for His existance.

You have missed what this was referring to. automan was claiming that I should take his word for his view:

Quote:

Please take my word for it, there is no God, and my word is as good as any one elses,
if you can believe them you can believe me.

Please take my word for it, there is God and He is the Christian God; and my word is as good as any one else's. If you can believe me. Why, because I do care for your salvation. I do care what happens to you. If you knew for sure that God existed and knew that some will perish if they do not accept Christ what would you do? Keep silent and let it be; or would you to the best of your ability try to help?

It would be like an atheist telling you to "take their word" that the Christian God doesn't exist. You wouldn't believe them, because you already believe that the Christian God exists.

Which is what had just happened. See above.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This doesn't seem like a bad thing.

Would you be willing, knowing that the Christian God exists to do His will instead of what you want to do?

And yet Satan managed to disobey God, didn't he?

Yes, just as anyone can. I can and do at times.

As did Adam and Eve, two other characters with irrefutable evidence of God's existence.

Yes, that is what free will is.

Are you now saying that if I knew for sure that God existed, I would be forced to love him? Why, exactly?

No that is the problem, you would be forced to accept Him as God and your creator but loving Him is not something that can be forced. Which is the reason for free will.

You've said that the reason God hides is that if he were to show himself, we'd have no choice but to love and obey him. But I've just mentioned three Bible characters who knew God intimately and still disobeyed him.

Yes, I did and I wrote without full thought involved for sure. Good point. Let me see if I can clarify my thoughts here. IF you had absolute proof of God you would have no choice but to know that all that entails is true. God in my experience wants to prove Himself in life experiences so that I see a more clear picture of Him each time He interacts within my life. Each step there is always a way out, I can look at something as totally natural or without God's input or I can learn that God is in all details and that is where faith comes in. Faith comes after knowing God exists and trusting His nature. IT was through some of my deepest doubts that God revealed His trustworthiness to me. I hope that makes sense.

Oh, and I might add the entire Hebrew nation: they follow Moses in the desert, where God manifests himself the whole time as a pillar of smoke by day, and a tower of fire by night; he sends them manna; Uzzah gets killed for touching the ark of the covenant; and so on. They certainly had much better grounds for believing in God than we do. Yet as soon as Moses goes up the mountain, they break the first and second commandments and start worshiping a golden calf.

Yes, in this case it was that they knew God existed but that He had forsaken them. That happens a lot. People doubt the outcome of something because they don't know if God is going to do it for them.

And what about Judas Iscariot? What about the Pharisees, the Romans, and anyone else involved in Jesus' crucifixion?

We don't know what Judas thought of Jesus as far as deity is concerned and the Pharisees and Romans feared Him but I don't think they really believed Him to be the Son of God, they felt that was blasphemy toward God. In fact, that was part of the reason perhaps the whole reason He was crucified.

We're up to, what, 15,000 or so people in the Bible who knew for a fact that God existed, yet went against him anyway. I think you need to find yourself a new argument.

I don't think my argument is inconsistent with the Christian world view.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Can't you tell when someone is taking the Micky, I have written it as a religious person would write it,
I am really saying all of these people HAVE been indoctrinated,
these people are what they are because of where they were born and it has nothing to do with them,
they did not make a conscious decision to believe in any of these religions, but they will die saying they did
and that it was all their idea.

In many cases I am sure that indoctrination occurs, in the Islamic tradition young men are indoctrinated very early and it is required for them to follow Allah. If Christians were the same as Muslims in this regard, you would be forced to worship the Christian God. Being raised in a nation where Christians were the majority, you were not indoctrinated into the faith. So your premise fails.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Where'd you get that viewpoint?

It is the Christian viewpoint which of course is from the Bible.

From my read of it, your prior comment implied that one could not hold a viewpoint on origins without the benefit of omniscience, be it one's own (as you asked of me) or derivative (as one would assert from the benefit of a religious text and divine inspiration). Simply put, I don't need to know everything, to have what I do know be true...

If you don't have all the information how do you know you know?

 

[Loudmouth]

Very true, and one can not from the lack of experiencing another's life assume that it is not real.

Do I have to experience schizophrenia before I conclude that another schizophrenic is not Elvis? This doesn't make any sense.

If something is real then there will be objective evidence that it is real. Earlier you said that we should "trust you". I would bet a large sum of money that you would not be convinced by the personal experiences of a devout Hindu. I say that we should not trust each other. We could both be fooled or deluded about our belief or disbelief. So what are we left with? Objective facts. Things we both agree on. Things we can both touch, sense, or experiment with. Things that are outside of our direct influence.

 

[karzma]

There is possibility that pink unicorn exists no matter how small you feel that is, you cant know that there is no pink unicorns. But is it smart actually believe pink unicorns exists?

you are correct.

I am agnostic on the subject on Pink Unicorns

I havn't proven they don't exist, and there is a chance they may exist, so I'm not totally decided on the matter.

Also, red and blue unicorns too.

 

[DrkSdBls]

Your point, as I read it, was;
which is incorrect. The reasons why we don't see life being created everyday is not because of unknown variables. Its because of known variables (mainly, lots of oxygen).

So, if I was to take a vat of Chemicals and stick it in a Vaccum right now and come back later, I'll find life?

Well, I guess we'll see, once a comprehensive abiogenetic theory is established. From most of my readings in abiogenesis research, the answers are nowhere near as complex as most of its detractors would hope...

Is anything ever as Complex as it seems?
Is anything ever as Simple as it seems?

Such questions are never answered until the task is complete. But that's no reason to assume one over the other beforehand.

Omniscience again, as a conditional for being able to claim anything with authority. Yeah, I've seen a few people arguing that lately, and its wrong. Not knowing everything about a topic, doesn't automatically invalidate what you do know. Or, are you telling me that you can't claim what you know about God is accurate, because you don't know everything about God..?

I never said anything about Omniscience. But I do agree, Just because we know so little doesn't mean we know nothing!

Besides. I know nothing about God so I can't claim anything I believe about him/he/it to be accurate. But that doesn't mean I don't have a pretty good guess.

That's pretty much where its headed...

In time, all Questions will be answered.

My point was; we know enough about the early Earth, to form a sensible answer to your particular question "why doesn't life spontaneously form all of the time" without appealing to 'Yet To Be Explained Forces' or 'Unknown Variables'. The key variable is known; its oxygen. Simple.
This observation (like any observation)is not invalidated by the fact that we are not omniscient.

Actually, that wasn't quite my point. I only used that in a loose metaphor. I was trying to stress the point that it takes more then just a pool of Chemicals to create life.

 

[atomweaver]

It is the Christian viewpoint which of course is from the Bible.

verse(s), please.

If you don't have all the information how do you know you know?

I've got enough to answer the question, and if I learn more later, I'll refine the answer even more...

You don't have all the information on God. So, if you have to have all the information to know, then How do you know you know? See how this argument doesn't work? Lack of omniscience doesn't invalidate posative knowledge, be it theological, scientific, or otherwise.

 

[automan]

Have you ever wondered why most Mormons are from Salt Lake City? and most Muslims are from the middle east?
and most creationists are from America? I can assure you it has absolutely nothing to do with indoctrination, these people have all decided to be what they are for themselves.
The fact that they happened to be brought up in these places and decided to adopt the religions of that area was completely by chance.

In many cases I am sure that indoctrination occurs, in the Islamic tradition young men are indoctrinated very early and it is required for them to follow Allah. If Christians were the same as Muslims in this regard, you would be forced to worship the Christian God. Being raised in a nation where Christians were the majority, you were not indoctrinated into the faith. So your premise fails.

So you think the Muslims and the Mormons could well have been indoctrinated but not the Christians, the Christians have all come to Jesus all on their own, even if they live in a town or a village that is all Christian and they would be ostracized if they were to believe anything else (as they would be if they were Muslims).
I bet you feel really lucky that you have hit on the one religion where everyone believed because they wanted to believe.

Luckily for me I was raised in a country that is about 75% atheist, the UK, so I was not subjected to a religion as I was growing up,
a few of my friends were, mostly Catholics,
so I know at first hand that most religions need to be taught to the very young for them to be most effective,
if a child is not caught early enough they are pretty well lost for ever to religion, a few are not but the majority are.

So I think you are completely wrong in your assumption that most Christians are Christians out of choice,
some were most certainly given no choice at all, and they are unable to change,
(like a lot of married people when love has gone, it is easier to stay married than it is to get a divorce, so they stay with what is easiest.)

I am happily married by the way, to another Atheist, we were married in a registry office, not a church.

 

[atomweaver]

So, if I was to take a vat of Chemicals and stick it in a Vaccum right now and come back later, I'll find life?

Lets review your assumptions,
was prebiotic Earth a vaccum?
was the timeframe in which you "came back later" sufficient?
Would you recognize an early life precusror for what it was?

Is anything ever as Complex as it seems?
Is anything ever as Simple as it seems?

Such questions are never answered until the task is complete. But that's no reason to assume one over the other beforehand.

Then one wonders why creationists continue to assert their opinion on the results of abiogenesis, before it has even formed its first whole threory. 'Fraid much?

I never said anything about Omniscience. But I do agree, Just because we know so little doesn't mean we know nothing

Outstanding!

Besides. I know nothing about God so I can't claim anything I believe about him/he/it to be accurate.

Nonsense! If you know something, even if only about what others perceive as God, then you know something about the idea of God. Even atheists know something about God (sometimes, moreso than a lotta people)...

But that doesn't mean I don't have a pretty good guess.

Attaboy. We're talking the same knowledge, now...

Actually, that wasn't quite my point. I only used that in a loose metaphor. I was trying to stress the point that it takes more then just a pool of Chemicals to create life.

OK, no one would dispute that.