The Danger of Creationism

[ottawak]

I don't believe life formed by random chance. Everything just happened to be in place for this to happen. I don't think it's a coincidence the earth is just the right distance from the sun and all the elements to support life just happen to be present and there is just enough gravity to keep us from floating off. I don't think it's a coincidence

Certainly life could not have formed if the correct chemical elements were not present and the environmental conditions not favorable. But it is not necessarily a "coincidence" any more than saying the fact that inflammable materials can spontaneously combust under the right conditions is a "coincidence."

What do you mean by "random chance" anyway? Its not really a scientific term so if you are going to use it in arguments about science you had better define it.

 

[BPPLEE]

Back? I have work to do and soon I am going to do some more. Then there will be hours without a posting. Then maybe some posting. Then sleep. I rarely post while sleeping...

I have to work but when things are quiet I can check my phone

 

[BPPLEE]

Certainly life could not have formed if the correct chemical elements were not present and the environmental conditions not favorable. But it is not necessarily a "coincidence" any more than saying the fact that inflammable materials can spontaneously combust under the right conditions is a "coincidence."

What do you mean by "random chance" anyway? Its not really a scientific term so if you are going to use it in arguments about science you had better define it.

 

[BPPLEE]

made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision.

 

[BPPLEE]

made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision.

 

[BPPLEE]

Certainly life could not have formed if the correct chemical elements were not present and the environmental conditions not favorable. But it is not necessarily a "coincidence" any more than saying the fact that inflammable materials can spontaneously combust under the right conditions is a "coincidence."

What do you mean by "random chance" anyway? Its not really a scientific term so if you are going to use it in arguments about science you had better define it.

made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision. And I think creating life is more complicated than spontaneous combustion

 

[ottawak]

made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision.

As I thought. In science, "random" merely means unpredictable. "Predictable by no known algorithm" --The Mathematics of Physics and Modern Engineering, Sokolnikov & Redheffer (a standard text which happens to be near my computer).

As for your definition, it is beyond the scope of science to consider such things as purpose or intention when investigating natural phenomen. You may not like this because it allows an atheist to contemplate an abiogenesis "without God" but it also does not rule God out of the picture. More generally from a theological perspective, identifying a naturalistic cause for any phenomenon does not rule out divine intention or purpose, even if the phenomenon includes a randomizing element (like evolution does). If you have been taught otherwise you have been seriously pranked and ought to sack your spiritual advisor and find another.

 

[BPPLEE]

As I thought. In science, "random" merely means unpredictable. "Predictable by no known algorithm" --The Mathematics of Physics and Modern Engineering, Sokolnikov & Redheffer (a standard text which happens to be near my computer).

As for your definition, it is beyond the scope of science to consider such things as purpose or intention when investigating natural phenomena. You may not like this because it allows an atheist to contemplate an abiogenesis "without God" but it also does not rule God out of the picture. More generally from a theological perspective, identifying a naturalistic cause for any phenomena does not rule out divine intention or purpose, even if the phenomena includes a randomizing element (like evolution does). If you have been taught otherwise you have been seriously pranked and ought to sack your spiritual advisor and find another.

As for your definition, it is beyond the scope of science to consider such things as purpose or intention when investigating natural phenomena. You may not like this because it allows an atheist to contemplate an abiogenesis "without God" but it also does not rule God out of the picture. More generally from a theological perspective, identifying a naturalistic cause for any phenomena does not rule out divine intention or purpose, even if the phenomena includes a randomizing element (like evolution does)
Good reply
If you have been taught otherwise you have been seriously pranked and ought to sack your spiritual advisor and find another
Snarky reply

 

[ottawak]

As for your definition, it is beyond the scope of science to consider such things as purpose or intention when investigating natural phenomena. You may not like this because it allows an atheist to contemplate an abiogenesis "without God" but it also does not rule God out of the picture. More generally from a theological perspective, identifying a naturalistic cause for any phenomena does not rule out divine intention or purpose, even if the phenomena includes a randomizing element (like evolution does)
Good reply
If you have been taught otherwise you have been seriously pranked and ought to sack your spiritual advisor and find another
Snarky reply

No, I am quite serious. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. From a metaphysical standpoint the issue was settled by the time of Aristotle and has been well understood by Christian theologians for centuries. Anybody who is telling you something else is telling you a fib.

 

[BPPLEE]

No, I am quite serious. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. From a metaphysical standpoint the issue was settled by the time of Aristotle and has been well understood by Christian theologians for centuries. Anybody who is telling you something else is telling you a fib.

Rom 5:12

¶
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom 5:13

(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Rom 5:14

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Rom 5:15

But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Rom 5:16

And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
Rom 5:17

For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
If there was no Adam, there was no need for a Savior. No need for Jesus to die for our sins. I noticed you were Episcopalian so I assume you believe in God

 

[rturner76]

All of that is obvious but the wild leap to into the
Supernatural, an eternal being greaterthan the universe?
Kind of like insensible.

Why? Does it make less sense that everything that exists was uncreated and random? I think people get hung up on the diety of God. God is not a white-bearded man on a throne in the clouds IMO. I think of it as an energy that binds reality together and creates order. I see it like all things have been created and things that are created need a creator.

 

[AV1611VET]

Theoretically, but the ID movement is crypto-creationism.

Now you know why I say the ID movement can take a hike.

 

[BPPLEE]

Now you know why I say the ID movement can take a hike.

I liked the idea of irreducible complexity

 

[AV1611VET]

I liked the idea of irreducible complexity

I do too, actually!

 

[ottawak]

Rom 5:12

¶
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom 5:13

(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Rom 5:14

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Rom 5:15

But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Rom 5:16

And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
Rom 5:17

For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

Nothing in thos passages specifies or explains how the biosphere and with it our own bodies were formed.
"If there was noam Adam,(as you envision him) If there was no Adam, there was no need for a Savior. No need for Jesus to die for our sins." is the fallacy of formal logic of inferring the inverse from the original statement. It is committed by reasoning in the form: If P, then Q. Therefore, if not P, then not Q.

I noticed you were Episcopalian so I assume you believe in God

Talk about snarky...

 

[ottawak]

Why? Does it make less sense that everything that exists was uncreated and random? I think people get hung up on the diety of God. God is not a white-bearded man on a throne in the clouds IMO. I think of it as an energy that binds reality together and creates order. I see it like all things have been created and things that are created need a creator.

You can believe it if you like. The problem is demonstrating it scientifically.

 

[BPPLEE]

Nothing in thos passages specifies or explains how the biosphere and with it our own bodies were formed.
"If there was noam Adam,(as you envision him) If there was no Adam, there was no need for a Savior. No need for Jesus to die for our sins." is the fallacy of formal logic of inferring the inverse from the original statement. It is committed by reasoning in the form: If P, then Q. Therefore, if not P, then not Q.Talk about snarky...

If there was no Adam what about Jacob and his 12 sons ? What does the scripture I quoted mean?

 

[ottawak]

If there was no Adam what about Jacob and his 12 sons ? What does the scripture I quoted mean?

Jacob and his 12 sons? You missed me with that one.

 

[BPPLEE]

Nothing in thos passages specifies or explains how the biosphere and with it our own bodies were formed.
"If there was noam Adam,(as you envision him) If there was no Adam, there was no need for a Savior. No need for Jesus to die for our sins." is the fallacy of formal logic of inferring the inverse from the original statement. It is committed by reasoning in the form: If P, then Q. Therefore, if not P, then not Q.Talk about snarky...

Do you take communion?

 

[BPPLEE]

Jacob and his 12 sons? You missed me with that one.

Where does mythology stop and history begin in the Bible