Re: Proof The Bible Is False -- CREATIONISM PROVES EVOLUTION

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 21:42:57 10/30/03 Thu
Author: Brett
Subject: Re: Proof The Bible Is False
In reply to: Erin 's message, "Re: Proof The Bible Is False" on 22:06:05 08/31/03 Sun

Erin,

I just read your argument on the and I had to put my two bits in.... where to start? First off, I'll ignore the door you opened in the mentioning of Stephen Hawking and his book, although I will mention that he is a supporter of the theory of evolution so I'm not sure why you mentioned him at all (see http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/life.html for his views on the subject). Next, your quote:

"Consider this. The Laws of Thermodynamics state that matter can neither be created nor distroyed and that an object at rest tends to stay at rest... Oops. That doesn't seem to help Evolution at all!"

I'm not exactly sure where you're reading your arguments from but the First Law of Thermodynamics (which you stated) and Newton's First Law of Motion (also stated) are used to argue against the natural creation of the universe, not evolution. They have absolutely nothing to do with evolution. But to make things complete I'll address this regardless. Since you seem so fond of naming argument fallacies I'll name one you used: argument from incredulity. This means that when you don't understand something you determine that the supernatural must have been the cause. Lightning was thought to be an act of God until we realized the scientific reasons for it. No one can know what happened at the beginning of the universe but there are things that can deal with the these laws, perhaps anti-energy was created simultaneously (to satisfy conservation) or perhaps the laws of thermodynamics did not evolve until the first moments of the universe. There's no need to get into the supernatural to explain things that we don't understand.
I believe you were meaning to state the second Law of Thermodynamics which states that order cannot arise from disorder. That is a common argument used by creationists against evolution, if you go here http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html you can learn about the argument you should have made... and the counter argument that really destroys it's credibility.
To move on...

"Consider the law of Cause and Effect. Darwin's followers believe that No One + Nothing = Everything. No one created the universe...it just decided to create itself."

I'm not going to go into a lot of science on this one mostly because those who believe in evolution or creationism must agree on one thing: something had to always just be. Yes, supporters of the Big Bang theory and evolution must concede that the primordial egg doesn't seem to have an origin, it either existed for all time before the Big Bang or it is part of a constant cycle between the Big Bang and the Big Crunch (as put forth by Hawking and others). So, while creationists seem to love to use this as an end all argument (well someone must have created it!) they are forgetting the fact that they themselves claim that God is timeless and has always existed. If you can believe that an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being has existed without apparent origin, what's the stretch to thinking that the primordial egg has always existed, or at least the infinite cycle of Big Bang and Big Crunch? If you believe one, you must be able to see merit in the other, they both suggest something that the human mind cannot understand.

"Actually, we are all just random mutations and there is no "self." You and I are illusions. Free will does not exist because we are just the result of random mutations and reactions. (Look up a little thing called Determinism.)"

Bringing up Determinism does nothing to prove or disprove evolution. It suggests that there is no free will because everything has a cause and that everything in the universe is governed by causal laws. This is an impossible view to prove or disprove, for how can one know if they have true free will? The theory of evolution and determinism do not go hand in hand, you can believe one and not the other. So whether or not determinism is true (which is impossible for anyone to ever know) is completely invalid to the argument.

"While you're at it, consider the law of Biogenesis. Like begets like. We are still waiting to find a link between species that clearly shows one species giving birth to a different species. So far, beavers beget beavers and flies beget flies."

The Law of Biogenesis states only that life comes from life. There are two easy responses to this argument:

1. The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution doesn't apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas don't work without a theory of meteorology.

2. Abiogenesis is a fact. Regardless of how you imagine it happened (note that creation is a theory of abiogenesis), it is a fact that there once was no life on earth, and now there is. Thus, even if evolution needs abiogenesis, it has it.

"Proof of intelligent design. Well...how many different conditions are necessary for a life sustaining planet earth to exist"

Yes, there are many conditions necessary for the sustainability of humans on Earth. We're not really talking about evolution here either but it seems to deserve an argument. For one, you seem to be considering two things that are incorrect, the conditions needed for human life to evolve, and you are calculating odds that this would have happened on Earth. Consider that the universe is incredibly large and life is amazingly versatile and resilient (as demonstrated by life in our volcanoes and in the Antarctic here on Earth) and the odds of life evolving are a lot more reasonable.
Another argument acknowledged by Stephen Hawking is the Anthropic Principle, which is based on the self-evident truth, that if the universe had not been suitable for life, we wouldn't be asking why it is so finely adjusted. Give this some thought and it will make a lot of sense for you.

Now, I'm not ignorant, I've read the bible and I've read books that claimed to ultimately prove it was true, but I have yet to find any source that could stand up to the close scrutiny of sound scientific reasoning. The fact is, people don't die and come back to life, miracles and magic do not exist in this universe, and the realm of things humans don't understand and must be explained away by a presence of a all powerful God is getting smaller by the year.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Proof The Bible Is False -- jose, 09:11:36 12/16/04 Thu
- Great quote Jose -- pathospea, 04:16:29 10/05/05 Wed