Creationism being taught in schools is a not all bad

Announcements Posted on
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by koolgurl14)
    Ok can no one please put on hate I am a neutral party with open mind here and I have been on the bounce between there being a creator or no creator , know science really well read lots of books .I used to believe in god and all that upto 16 then after reading lots of science books I got a bit hyped about thinking it is the answer for everything and god is fake and all.Time went past I am 18 now and I started to question myself that I am being too lazy maybe because I don't want to be praying or thinking about such a thing as an afterlife or any of that stuff. Now evoltuion is deffo real but it still doesn't end the idea of a possible creator. I have read about big bang and I also beleive it is absolutly real and true , but what doesn't add up is the law of physics when were they made and did they create themselves. Certainly the big bang occured and if we ignore what made it proceed as there has been some theories of what possibly made it proceed, the big bang happened and can't and be explained only if the law of physics have already been made before the big bang. This is the stomping point that changed my idea of the world that there is more likely to be creator, it doesn't mean its jesus or allah or whatever but it looks to me that there is a creator and science do is to attempt to describe these laws using symbolic language. We certainly cannot alter them so we really have no freewill at all as some atheist seem to believe. So I went on to a conclusion that there must be a creator but whether we are as important to him as religion claim or whether he even knows of our existence but just sees us as machines that recycle nutrients with no true purpose possibly just for his fun. So I still don't see how science have proved that a creator don't exist. Anyone care to discuss ?
    The point-by-point logical progression of your post seem to be a bit lacking, it's not coherent enough to know what exactly what you're trying to suggest. The Universe at every moment after the cosmic expansion event we call the big bang (I don't like the term, it wasn't a bang at all - it was space itself stretching everywhere) has been naturalistic so it makes no sense for religious creationist ideas to even be considered.

    If there were a creator, because you can't get something from nothing, then there is always an infinite regression problem of "who created the creator himself?" If you argue that he's timeless and such then we know you're disingenuous because that's called special pleading.

    Trying to make any kind of analogy to things normally being "created" out of pre-existing materials break down at the moment where you consider how (everything in the Universe that exists are a function of ex-materia creation, the stuff was already there but now it's in the form of a tree instead of a cloud of hydrogen).

    It looks like you're discussing a deistic God, one that isn't involved in our affairs except pressing a start button on the Universe - in which case, why believe in a God at all?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    You are so behind with the times it is almost funny.

    I would reply in more detail but I see you are the kind of atheist who comes up with nothing substantial to debate. You bulk out your reply by throwing insults to try and belittle me or whoever has a different outlook on the origins of life to you.

    You have no tolerance but then why would you, as a bunch of cells coming from nowhere and going no where. As is your belief.
    It seems you're being evasive and more disingenuous than those you're accusing. It might be a different outlook on the origins on life, but it's by no means the more informed or justified or founded outlook.

    And why do you think atheist understandings of the world are "beliefs"? It's much closer to "justifiable, falsifiable position/understanding based on principles of empiricism and scientific method"
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rather_Cynical)
    The point-by-point logical progression of your post seem to be a bit lacking, it's not coherent enough to know what exactly what you're trying to suggest. The Universe at every moment after the cosmic expansion event we call the big bang (I don't like the term, it wasn't a bang at all - it was space itself stretching everywhere) has been naturalistic so it makes no sense for religious creationist ideas to even be considered.

    If there were a creator, because you can't get something from nothing, then there is always an infinite regression problem of "who created the creator himself?" If you argue that he's timeless and such then we know you're disingenuous because that's called special pleading.

    Trying to make any kind of analogy to things normally being "created" out of pre-existing materials break down at the moment where you consider how (everything in the Universe that exists are a function of ex-materia creation, the stuff was already there but now it's in the form of a tree instead of a cloud of hydrogen).

    It looks like you're discussing a deistic God, one that isn't involved in our affairs except pressing a start button on the Universe - in which case, why believe in a God at all?
    Yeah I know sorry didn't quite explain very point as I didn't want to say my whole life story. Anyways what I am trying to ask is what created the laws of physics?
    There are in the universe 117 different elements, each with its own properties as a solid, liquid or gas. There are also forms of energy: gravity and the electromagnetic spectrum, heat, light and other forces at the subatomic level. There is the dimension of time. I mean I can go one but it kind of explains my point that the laws of physics are much more complex than for them to occur same way as evolution. Don't get me wrong I am not jumping for a must be a creator idea but as I think of it I am more inclined to it as non of my atheist friend have a good answer for it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by koolgurl14)
    Yeah I know sorry didn't quite explain very point as I didn't want to say my whole life story. Anyways what I am trying to ask is what created the laws of physics?
    There are in the universe 117 different elements, each with its own properties as a solid, liquid or gas. There are also forms of energy: gravity and the electromagnetic spectrum, heat, light and other forces at the subatomic level. There is the dimension of time. I mean I can go one but it kind of explains my point that the laws of physics are much more complex than for them to occur same way as evolution. Don't get me wrong I am not jumping for a must be a creator idea but as I think of it I am more inclined to it as non of my atheist friend have a good answer for it.
    That's an extremely deep question, which requires some level of theoretical physics to attempt to explain. I think you might misunderstand what the laws of physics are, they just describe the properties of the Universe in a mathematical way - it emerges as a property of any Universe that has consistent rules applied throughout.

    It should be more accurately asked "if the Universe is based on the laws of physics, based on certain fundamental constants like the forces of gravitation and electromagnetic forces and strong/weak nuclear forces, why those particular values?"

    I suppose because it gives rise to a Universe where humans can observe to ask the question. If it were any different, ie if you were in another Universe, the intelligent life wouldn't emerge to ask why it exists. In short, the Universe isn't necessarily fine tuned for us, it just so happens that this Universe has all the properties to allow us to exist so when we look into the skies we wonder why the Universe is "made for us"

    If you made a computer program type up a trillion-trillion characters at random, you'll find that oddly enough there's a string of text that is exactly the same as your post. It didn't have to be designed to type up your post, but it came about nonetheless.

    It's not a bad idea to postulate many different Universes with slightly different starting conditions, like gravity being a bit weaker (stars and galaxies would never form, so complex matter never forms) or the dark energy of the Universe being a bit weaker (leading to gravitational collapse of the Universe before galaxies would form) - we just happen to be in the right part of the galaxy to not be toasted by cosmic radiation, not be roasted by our own sun, not exist in a time where there were only hydrogen and helium, and in a Universe where complex molecules could come about by the forces of nature.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rather_Cynical)
    It looks like you're discussing a deistic God, one that isn't involved in our affairs except pressing a start button on the Universe - in which case, why believe in a God at all?

    I was reading about Deism, and I think you are right it is exactly what I am thinking of right now. I see what you mean, the multiple universe is still a theory and I guess none of us will ever live for they day for it to be proved. Anyways I guess Ill just have to believe we are super lucky then.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by koolgurl14)
    I was reading about Deism, and I think you are right it is exactly what I am thinking of right now. I see what you mean, the multiple universe is still a theory and I guess none of us will ever live for they day for it to be proved. Anyways I guess Ill just have to believe we are super lucky then.
    It's not quite a theory (scientific theory means something in particular, we're not using the colloquial term), it's still in hypothesis stage, and we hope to eventually be able to leap across through a wormhole to have a look at another Universe - or at least, do some kind of experiment to interact with one.

    If there is only one Universe (ie encompassing everything with a consistent set of physical laws), then it would almost make sense to believe in a deistic god - it would be insane that a Universe exists with just the right conditions to do all the naturalist steps to form life.

    If it is the case that there are many Universes, then any kind of argument about creating life becomes silly - there'd be no such thing as too complex to evolve because you have infinite parameters to use, one of which perfectly describes this Universe where natural conditions could lead to life.

    Ours.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The OP is a fool if he thinks creationism as a scientific theory has any evidence. You may be able to sell this to some of the dumber American school boards, but it is never going to be introduced into the British Science Curriculum.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rather_Cynical)
    It's not quite a theory (scientific theory means something in particular, we're not using the colloquial term), it's still in hypothesis stage, and we hope to eventually be able to leap across through a wormhole to have a look at another Universe - or at least, do some kind of experiment to interact with one.

    If there is only one Universe (ie encompassing everything with a consistent set of physical laws), then it would almost make sense to believe in a deistic god - it would be insane that a Universe exists with just the right conditions to do all the naturalist steps to form life.

    If it is the case that there are many Universes, then any kind of argument about creating life becomes silly - there'd be no such thing as too complex to evolve because you have infinite parameters to use, one of which perfectly describes this Universe where natural conditions could lead to life.

    Ours.
    I do not agree with this at all, life seems to strive to exist here on this planet, and fills niche's that would be deadly to other life forms. So given that abiogenesis is just chemistry, Evolution takes care of the rest of the story. I am sure this would also apply to other planets and even other possible universes. If you stop thinking that life is something special, it makes it easier.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I'm referring to the four forces of the Universe, as well as all the particles, the strengths and ranges are just right to avoid Universal collapse and so forth. If you fudge some of the numbers, the stars required to form high nucleon atoms can't even exist - which means we can't either.

    The question that was asked was "where do these laws of physics come from?" and presumably "why these numbers?"

    Of course, once the laws of physics has been established, there's no steps that require explaining because obeying those laws would happily form life somewhere in the cosmos.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rather_Cynical)
    The point-by-point logical progression of your post seem to be a bit lacking, it's not coherent enough to know what exactly what you're trying to suggest. The Universe at every moment after the cosmic expansion event we call the big bang (I don't like the term, it wasn't a bang at all - it was space itself stretching everywhere) has been naturalistic so it makes no sense for religious creationist ideas to even be considered.

    If there were a creator, because you can't get something from nothing, then there is always an infinite regression problem of "who created the creator himself?" If you argue that he's timeless and such then we know you're disingenuous because that's called special pleading.

    Trying to make any kind of analogy to things normally being "created" out of pre-existing materials break down at the moment where you consider how (everything in the Universe that exists are a function of ex-materia creation, the stuff was already there but now it's in the form of a tree instead of a cloud of hydrogen).

    It looks like you're discussing a deistic God, one that isn't involved in our affairs except pressing a start button on the Universe - in which case, why believe in a God at all?
    "The Universe at every moment after the cosmic expansion event we call the big bang (I don't like the term, it wasn't a bang at all - it was space itself stretching everywhere) has been naturalistic so it makes no sense for religious creationist ideas to even be considered."

    Except you miss out one very important factor and that is that God ordained it to be recorded in the bible so we would have no doubt that God created the universe.

    Isaiah records the following

    Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been declared to you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? 22It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah
    The Isaiah scroll, the oldest surviving manuscript of Isaiah: found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and dating from about 150 to 100 BCE, it contains almost the whole Book of Isaiah and is substantially identical with the modern Masoretic text.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Circles and spheres are very different things, and no matter how many revelations it gives it's still not compelling evidence to believe in any Gods.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    "The Universe at every moment after the cosmic expansion event we call the big bang (I don't like the term, it wasn't a bang at all - it was space itself stretching everywhere) has been naturalistic so it makes no sense for religious creationist ideas to even be considered."

    Except you miss out one very important factor and that is that God ordained it to be recorded in the bible so we would have no doubt that God created the universe.

    Isaiah records the following

    Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been declared to you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? 22It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah
    The Isaiah scroll, the oldest surviving manuscript of Isaiah: found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and dating from about 150 to 100 BCE, it contains almost the whole Book of Isaiah and is substantially identical with the modern Masoretic text.
    Its a pity you are not a Pastafarian, this would be even funnier.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    Its a pity you are not a Pastafarian, this would be even funnier.

    Which part are you talking about? Now that the reply doesn't include the whole text one is replying to it makes it a bit confusing to reply without the above reference completely visible.

    Besides this, can't you see how your continual mocking is pointless.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rather_Cynical)
    Circles and spheres are very different things, and no matter how many revelations it gives it's still not compelling evidence to believe in any Gods.
    It doesn't matter if it is a circle or sphere, you are missing the point.

    Its like the part that says It is He who sits above the circle of the earth we know God doesn't actually sit above earth.

    (otherwise we would have seen him when NASA show us the pictures of earth from space )
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I don't buy the "this book was made to be understood by the people of the time" thing when it comes to the vague references you have to "interpret", if an almighty being had actually authored religious doctrine then it should specify in precise detail about things like advanced chemistry, physics, and cosmology.

    I'm talking about describing atoms as being a fundamental constituent of matter by its chemical properties, their motion, electrons having wave-like properties, quantum phenomena, etc before it gets later confirmed by experiment. I'm talking about descriptions of the stars in detail, such as the constant nature of the speed of light and mass energy equivalence and four fundamental forces, etc.

    If there was a religious doctrine that could be shown to be written thousands of years ago (radiological dating to verify), independent of the views of the scientists at the time (based on the literatures available), doing all that then I'd consider it quite an achievement and maybe there is some insight into the Universe from the book.

    Until that day comes, it's hard to pay it much attention when the "morals" it espouses belong to another century and nothing of actual substance is written. Talking snakes and magical skydaddies in general make it difficult to believe as anything more than the fantasy of bronze-aged men to pacify and control the masses.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rather_Cynical)
    I'm referring to the four forces of the Universe, as well as all the particles, the strengths and ranges are just right to avoid Universal collapse and so forth. If you fudge some of the numbers, the stars required to form high nucleon atoms can't even exist - which means we can't either.

    The question that was asked was "where do these laws of physics come from?" and presumably "why these numbers?"

    Of course, once the laws of physics has been established, there's no steps that require explaining because obeying those laws would happily form life somewhere in the cosmos.
    You are misunderstanding what a law is, it is not a fact but an observation, it is what we see by experiment. As for the forces these are the known forces, we have only just begun the investigation. The one thing we do know is once we understand something it is easier to accept, that is why Dawkins is right to say, "What is probably true". Don't think that what we know now is absolute, in 500 years we will look like scientifically ignorant Creationist Christians of today.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Galadrielll)
    Many scientists support creationism and in fact lots of the evidence for evolution supports creationism in some cases more so than evolution itself. Take the lack of transitional fossils for example. If all life forms have evolved from simpler life forms there should be millions of transitional fossils available for study. These transitional fossils would be of the type showing the process of one species evolving into another. However, no transitional fossils have ever been found. As such the fossil record actually lines up better with supernatural creation than with macroevolution.
    Go to a natural history museum. Despite the rarity of fossilisation as a phenomena there are many, many 'transitional' fossils available. It is wilful ignorance to state that 'no transitional fossils have ever been found'.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    "The Universe at every moment after the cosmic expansion event we call the big bang (I don't like the term, it wasn't a bang at all - it was space itself stretching everywhere) has been naturalistic so it makes no sense for religious creationist ideas to even be considered."

    Except you miss out one very important factor and that is that God ordained it to be recorded in the bible so we would have no doubt that God created the universe.

    Isaiah records the following

    Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been declared to you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? 22It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah
    The Isaiah scroll, the oldest surviving manuscript of Isaiah: found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and dating from about 150 to 100 BCE, it contains almost the whole Book of Isaiah and is substantially identical with the modern Masoretic text.
    Hang on! You are a YEC, you cannot accept the big bang, but you are claiming your 'book' foretells it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dozyrosie)
    Hang on! You are a YEC, you cannot accept the big bang, but you are claiming your 'book' foretells it.
    You see stuff like that all the time.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    It doesn't matter if it is a circle or sphere, you are missing the point.

    Its like the part that says It is He who sits above the circle of the earth we know God doesn't actually sit above earth.

    (otherwise we would have seen him when NASA show us the pictures of earth from space )
    There is no above the Earth. There is no circle of the Earth. So it means what is most likely, these ancients saw the earth as a flat disc, welcome to all the YEC's into the flat Earth society.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 16, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
How are you feeling about doing A-levels?
Useful resources
Uni match

Applying to uni?

Our tool will help you find the perfect course

Articles:

Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

Quick link:

Educational debate unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.