What makes Creationism so hard to believe in, and evolution so easy?

[Biochemist]

Quantum theory uses probability to determine the effects of subatomic particle interactions....Nothing in nature is random. Random means uncaused.

So, you are finally admitting that you think QM is not random. (Please correct me if I misinterpreted.) You are certainly allowed to hold a minority position on this, and hold it by postulate, in opposition to the experimental evidence. But this is the same woman that claimed to have no belief system???

 

Don't you see a little incongruity here??

[paultrr]

Good post, Paultrr, but this is Hebrews 11:1.

 

I don't mean to be picky. Apologies if I sound that way.

 

You're right. For some reason I got that one mixed up with another passage.

[paultrr]

So, you are finally admitting that you think QM is not random. (Please correct me if I misinterpreted.) You are certainly allowed to hold a minority position on this, and hold it by postulate, in opposition to the experimental evidence. But this is the same woman that claimed to have no belief system???

 

Don't you see a little incongruity here??

 

Werner Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in 1927: states that it is impossible to determine at the same time and with arbitrary accuracy pairs of physical properties dealing with space-time and energy. The classic example of these so called "conjugate variables" are position and momentum. The more accurately position is determined, the less accurately momentum can be determined. Both values can be resolved at the same time but not with a high degree of accuracy. If position is determined precisely then nothing can be known about momentum and vice versa. This is not due to the inadequacy of the instruments at our disposal nor is it because we haven't figured out a way to do it yet; it is a fundamental aspect of nature at the quantum scale.

 

The uncertainty principle did away with Newtonian determinism and his clockwork universe in which everything can be predicted if extrapolations are made from the current positions and momenta of all particles. If these variables cannot even in principle be determined accurately at the quantum level, precisely predicting the future of a particle is forever beyond our grasp at least when it comes to the quantum level.

 

At the heart of all this debate about randomness is not only that uncertanity, but, also the Copenhagen Interpretation which incoporates:

 

(1) The Uncertainty Principle.

 

(2) The Principle of Complementarity of Bohr.

 

The original thought experiment employed by Bohr and Heisenberg was a causal demonstration which assumed an underlying deterministic position and momentum. It quickly breaks down from there as far as the rest goes with that determinism giving way to something more random. You start with positivism and end up with something that approaches subjectivism in that thought experiment's conclusions.

 

Bohr's Principle of Complementarity arose out of the difficulty physicists were having in their attempts to determine whether quantum phenomena such as light are particles or waves. In the end run we accepted both as true since both aspects could be demonstrated.

 

Erwin Schroedinger's Equation is a differential equation of a particle of given mass subject to forces varying in time & space. The solutions of Schroedinger's Equation are de Broglie matter waves denoted as psi associated with the motion of the particle. Comparisions can be made between the electromagnetic-wave equation and Schroedinger's matter-wave equation. Schroedinger's Equation contains a complex imaginary, i term, implying that the de Broglie wave functions are mathematical entities which cannot be imputed to have physical existence.

 

Bohm went further and attempted to model these waves as real. I personally see some of that idea as making sence. But not to the degree that Bohm and some of his modern followers go. For one, playing a bit with String Theory and Bohm's model, if the particle is the wavefunction then its ability to appear in more than one place is the result of that wavefunction spread in the first place. As such the particle-wave would actually have a real position and momentum which is that spread out wavefunction. While we could not directly use our instruments to measure the whole spread wavefunction it would have a precise value for position and momentum and randomness begins to vanish from QM.

 

While partly solving that whole random issue what I dislike in this approach is that our wavefunction in becoming real, becomes a scientific equal to the whole God equation(Unicorn in the midst) in that even though one cannot hope to measure with precission that spread out wave it still exists. But I still tend myself to favor an answer that eliminates the random part simply because it does restore order being built upon order and cause and effect. The point is there is no easy solution to that random issue and a lot depends upon who's interpretational method one follows.

 

I'm very uncertain why a lot of Christian harp so much upon that random aspect in QM to begin with. The God portrayed in the Bible is supposed to be a God of order who does not play dice, as Einstein put it.

[paultrr]

No it's not.

 

I also contend that Santa Claus doesn't exist (with your fanciful imagination and unscientific approach to reality, you probably believe otherwise) yet because of the "Good Book" - The Night Before Christmas - I can tell you what this putative Santa Clause supposedly did and said.

 

Now, I contend that God doesn't exist (with your fanciful imagination and unscientific approach to reality, you probably believe otherwise) yet because of the "Good Book" - the Bible - I can tell you what this putative God supposedly did and said.

 

You know, like give the thumbs up for Satan to slaughter Job's family, and then to also give the thumbs up on Satan's torturing of Job.

 

Everybody sing along...

 

"God is evil this I know

for the Bible tells me so."

 

Linda and others like the Job story as an example of the God of the Bible being not so loving, so to speak. Every chance they get the refer to that story. The Problem is Job, nor God caused those bad things to happen by the story. God was, by the story, challenged by Satan that Job only served God because God protected him. God allowed Satan to bring about the rest as proof that there was more to Job's faith than simply serving God because he kept him safe. For someone who professes that the Bible is not valid history or anything else using that Book to prove something is rather crazy. Its one of the more questioned books in the whole Bible even by Bible Historians. The exact time period is not even discussed in the Book and personally I suspect the Book is something that crept into the Bible based upon tranditional story telling more than anything else. Its a clear example of someone using a storyline to illustrate what real faith is supposed to be, not real history.

 

For one, given all the rest of the Bible I can see no reason the God of the Bible would have sat on his throne listening to Satan chatter on about Job. He would not have even allowed him near his throne after the rebellion if any of the rest of the Bible story was true. I'd give Linda and the rest an F on even bringing that book up in any decent argument since the logic in that story rather shows its not historical fact when compared to the whole Bible. What it shows me is why they really hate the whole God subject and attack it so much. Granted some Christians believe everything there in the Bible is true as far as history goes. The Literal seven day types out there prove that is true. Yet, even Christ, when questioned out of the OT on the subject of divorce in the law said, "That was not written because my Father said so. It was written because of the hardness of man's heart." That's a clear statement on not everything in the Bible being God's word and for that matter historical fact either. Something those of us who do not believe in God would go further by saying its all made up even if some does record historical circumstances. Given the Fundamentalists view compared to Christ I suspect Christ was the first liberal in the camp in a mannor of speaking. The point is find something better than Job for you're examples. Its simply a story retold many times over written down with no real history behind it.

[paultrr]

In short, Creationism is hard because we have no proof of the scientific type God even exists. If he does not exist then there is no real creation story to begin with. Rational Logic will not lead one to God. Even I a non-believer understand that issue. I also understand why believers have such a problem with evolution and strict quantum interpertation. It does at times seem to conclude there is no value in life in general when certain non-believers present things the way they do. The thing is if evolution is correct it took billions of years for life as we know it to even have a chance in this universe. That to me translates to life being very important and something that should be cherished. In all the universe there is to the best of our present knowledge only one you. You are unique and have value simply because of how many things nature had to get lined up before you became even possible.

 

Evolution as a process should be looked at as showing the worth of life, not the worthlessness of such. Some creature who can think beyond other creatures and who is the by-product of a long chain of cause and effect going back billions of years even to the moment of creation certainly has more net worth than some simply spoken into existance creature there to fellowship with a God who created him to put an end to a rebellion that took place long before he or she was created. The first got there through a lot of hard struggle as a race. The second had no choice in the matter and is there to only make one choice: Serve God's purpose, not their own or suffer the fate of the rest in rebellion. I'm reminded of some words in Milton's book: "Tiss better to be free in hell than to serve in heaven."

 

If we made choices as a race and through such choices evolved further there is a lot of worth in life in general because it was hard earned. That gives some substance to moral laws on why killing is wrong instead of them just being some laws given to man by some creator with his own purpose in mind.

[TeleMad]

TeleMad: You know, like give the thumbs up for Satan to slaughter Job's family, and then to also give the thumbs up on Satan's torturing of Job.

 

Biochemist: TM- You use this reference quite a bit, and all it shows is you don't know a lot about the book of Job.

 

No, it shows I know a lot about how Bible thumpers will go to great lengths to try to show that true is false and false is true.

 

 

Please try to maintain civility, TM.

 

Please stop trying to paint me the way YOU view me.

 

If someone uses a Bible passage to show how loving God is, and then they say, "God is love!" ... can I complain and tell them to start acting civil?

 

That wouldn't make any sense. And neither does your comment to me. The Bible indicates God did despicable thing. I pointed that out, then added "God is evil". That doesn't make me uncivil. It makes me the opposite of the Bible thumpers who proclaim (in their opinion) the glory and majesty and lovingness of their all-righteous being.

[TeleMad]

The Problem is Job, nor God caused those bad things to happen by the story.

 

God willingly allowed Satan to kill Job's children, not because Job had done something wrong, but because Satan easily manipulated the obviously inferior God into allowing it.

 

Satan talked God into (hey, wait a minute!) letting him kill Job’s servants and family, as well as flocks of animals. Why? To see if Job will still love God. Man, what an ego God has. Pretty easy to manipulate too.

 

Then the Lord said to Satan,

 

“Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”

 

“Does Job fear God for nothing?”, Satan replied. “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.”

 

The Lord said to Satan, “Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.”

(NIC Bible)

 

Now with God’s permission, Satan sets about killing Job’s sheep and oxen. Oh, and Satan also kills people – Job’s servants. Oh, and Satan – having obtained God’s okay – also kills Job’s children!!! What a loving God!!!

 

 

Now, religious people are slapped square in the face with God being dispecable. What are they to do? They try to prove true is false and false is true. They wiggle this way and that way to try to get around this fact, and they fabricate silly 'explanations'. Explanations that only someone already completely brainwashed by religion would accept.

[IMAMONKEY!]

No it's not.

 

I also contend that Santa Claus doesn't exist (with your fanciful imagination and unscientific approach to reality, you probably believe otherwise) yet because of the "Good Book" - The Night Before Christmas - I can tell you what this putative Santa Clause supposedly did and said.

 

Now, I contend that God doesn't exist (with your fanciful imagination and unscientific approach to reality, you probably believe otherwise) yet because of the "Good Book" - the Bible - I can tell you what this putative God supposedly did and said.

 

ok thats a little harsh man... "with your fanciful imagination and unscientific approach to reality, you probably believe otherwise"... imagination is fine!!!! its imagination that runs this godforsaken world!!! And his approach may not have been scientific, but if you stood up to a crowd of Catholics and dared to say that theyd lynch you! :friday: And i for one would not stand for such rude critiscism! :eek: :xx: :eek:

 

And personally since i do not believe in the new testament, id have to agree with you! God was not loving in that scenario! that is why i have it all worked out! ill explain this later in a seperate thread and i beg of you TeleMad to please see that thread. ill notify you when its written. Until then...

 

Monkey ho!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :eek:

[paultrr]

God willingly allowed Satan to kill Job's children, not because Job had done something wrong, but because Satan easily manipulated the obviously inferior God into allowing it.

 

Satan talked God into (hey, wait a minute!) letting him kill Job’s servants and family, as well as flocks of animals. Why? To see if Job will still love God. Man, what an ego God has. Pretty easy to manipulate too.

 

 

 

Now with God’s permission, Satan sets about killing Job’s sheep and oxen. Oh, and Satan also kills people – Job’s servants. Oh, and Satan – having obtained God’s okay – also kills Job’s children!!! What a loving God!!!

 

 

Now, religious people are slapped square in the face with God being dispecable. What are they to do? They try to prove true is false and false is true. They wiggle this way and that way to try to get around this fact, and they fabricate silly 'explanations'. Explanations that only someone already completely brainwashed by religion would accept.

 

Unless you want to ascert as a fundamentalists would that Job is a real story you're argument falls apart. In fact, you're argument would only apply to a fundamentalists who believes that story is true in the first place. Most moderate and liberal Christians don't tend to uphold that as anything more than a fiction story. So in essence you are simply relating a fiction story to try and prove you're point which ends up making you the one who appears to think its a real story.

 

What you do in you're mind is lump all religious people as the same. I'm not certain if that stems from certain contacts you've had or what. But its not actually the case that all religious people take things like the story of Job or even the story of creation as literal fact. Some do and some do not. There are even some religious people who see the Bible simply as a storybook where different men try to explain in their own terms their understanding of the Devine. There is no absolute concensus on any of this in the world's religiuous community. If there was a concensus on this we would not have all the different sects out there. That applies to the Christian religion and if you add in all the other religions out there, of which some do not even consider the Bible anything more than fiction, the case on all religious having that same view becomes even less factual.

[paultrr]

What I have as a problem is where any group, united into an organization, trys to impose their point of view on everyone else. I think it is wrong when the religious do it and just as wrong when an athiest does it. By the Constitution of this country we have religious freedom which means we have the right to believe or not believe. We also have freedom of speach which translates to our right to voice our opinion which everyone in this forum no matter the country they come from does just fine.

 

I have children. I have never imposed my own point of view to them. But I have always presented my own point of view to them. One has grown up and is an athiest. Two tend to believe and one is not sure either way. One of my children who believes often asks me questions about how come God created this or that. My own answer has always been I do not think God created anything and I explain as much as I can why I see it that way. But I do not belittle his belief and I think it is wrong to. I also think it is wrong to force my own views on my children on such matters. When they ask I explain and nothing more. Some of the religious think its right to try and impose their views on others. I also notice some athiests think it is right to do that also. Two wrongs do not make a right. I want my children to grow up, look at all the sides and make their own choice. I think the same applies to everyone else out there too. I also think one can present one's view without always being negative towards others. In this forum I have only come across a few who are always negative towards others. One aptly notices they get negative attitudes back at them all the time.

 

I and most of the rest of us in this world do not need any organization telling us what to believe. That goes for the Religious organizations and the Athiest one also. We had a discussion in another thread about the situation in one State here where evolution is not going to be taught by enforced law. I see such as a step backwards for both the religious and the non-religious. Its some group or organization trying to tell everyone else what they should think who happens to be in power.

[Zohaar818]

But it certainly tends to paint a picture where I, we, the individuals are simply nothing more than a biomechanical machine weither that's the picture you want to paint or not. A machine has never existed that has feeling or can leap beyond logic, which is what you see faith as, and imagine a life after death.

 

Dear Paultrr,

 

I do not believe we are merely thinking 'machines', bio-chemical or otherwise. And in fact i think that is the wrong analogy. In most deist faiths which posit the existence of a soul..the body is seen as the vessel or repository of the soul..a temporary place that the soul enters and leaves. The Buddhists, for example use the analogy that we are like tea in a cup..the body being the cup. Break the cup and what happens to the tea..does it stop being tea?

No..nor does death of the body mean death of the soul.

I personally have no trouble positing the existence of consciousness outside the body..and there is a startling amount of empirical evidence coming from the research into NDE that would tend to sustain that view, even without a clear understanding of the mechanism or medium involved.

But I do not believe the existence of a soul is prima facie evidence for the exisience of an all powerful creator who designed us in His image.

 

Anyway..we are roaming terribly off topic with some of these last posts. Perhaps the reason is that people tend to take religion so personally. ..but hey..I guess that is part and parcel of the human condition..to personalize ones experience or fear of the unknowable.

 

My fundamental argument against 'creationsim'is that it is based on texts which we know to be other than advertised and written not only after the fact but towards the purpose of manipulating humans to be other than human in order to please a God who made them human. They believe the truest test of faith is to spend as much time and effort regretting or repenting for your humanity, that you must rise above it saomehow to be worthy of heaven..yada yada.

And again..the 'God' of Genesis and the Bible , although quite certainly possessed of superior intelligence, technical abilities and power than that of our lowly ancestors..is not the God [if there ever was one] who created the UNIVERSE as we currently understand it.

 

Like one of the posters wrote above...I do not categorically rule out the existence of God..but positing His[Her] existence isn't necessary to prove 2+2 =4

 

Sincerely

Zohaar

[Zohaar818]

Linda and others like the Job story as an example of the God of the Bible being not so loving, so to speak. Every chance they get the refer to that story. The Problem is Job, nor God caused those bad things to happen by the story. God was, by the story, challenged by Satan that Job only served God because God protected him. God allowed Satan to bring about the rest as proof that there was more to Job's faith than simply serving God because he kept him safe. For someone who professes that the Bible is not valid history or anything else using that Book to prove something is rather crazy. Its one of the more questioned books in the whole Bible even by Bible Historians. The exact time period is not even discussed in the Book and personally I suspect the Book is something that crept into the Bible based upon tranditional story telling more than anything else. Its a clear example of someone using a storyline to illustrate what real faith is supposed to be, not real history.

 

For one, given all the rest of the Bible I can see no reason the God of the Bible would have sat on his throne listening to Satan chatter on about Job. He would not have even allowed him near his throne after the rebellion if any of the rest of the Bible story was true. I'd give Linda and the rest an F on even bringing that book up in any decent argument since the logic in that story rather shows its not historical fact when compared to the whole Bible. What it shows me is why they really hate the whole God subject and attack it so much. Granted some Christians believe everything there in the Bible is true as far as history goes. The Literal seven day types out there prove that is true. Yet, even Christ, when questioned out of the OT on the subject of divorce in the law said, "That was not written because my Father said so. It was written because of the hardness of man's heart." That's a clear statement on not everything in the Bible being God's word and for that matter historical fact either. Something those of us who do not believe in God would go further by saying its all made up even if some does record historical circumstances. Given the Fundamentalists view compared to Christ I suspect Christ was the first liberal in the camp in a mannor of speaking. The point is find something better than Job for you're examples. Its simply a story retold many times over written down with no real history behind it.

 

You know..this kind of argument is exactly what one comes to expect from folks who take the Bible literally, and who never sat down and talked to a rabbi...or a biblical scholar. And it's unfortunate given that links to sources that would enlighten one as to how the Holy Book got put together and over how long a time, and by who and in what historical context are to be found at the right of this webpage...

 

 

-Sincerely

-Zohaar

[paultrr]

 

Like one of the posters wrote above...I do not categorically rule out the existence of God..but positing His[Her] existence isn't necessary to prove 2+2 =4

 

Sincerely

Zohaar

 

True, nor is it a requirement of science to prove or disprove God. Science only studes Nature itself, not some external deity. Even if one existed we cannot study anything but nature around us. Its our limit, so to speak. We can personally interpret such study evidence one way or another. But once one begins to interpret beyond the scope of nature to what may or may not exist one is going beyond the evidence there is. Then you are in the realm of speculation and assumption. Both can be tools to discovery. But both have no evidence weight at all.

[paultrr]

You know..this kind of argument is exactly what one comes to expect from folks who take the Bible literally, and who never sat down and talked to a rabbi...or a biblical scholar. And it's unfortunate given that links to sources that would enlighten one as to how the Holy Book got put together and over how long a time, and by who and in what historical context are to be found at the right of this webpage...

 

 

-Sincerely

-Zohaar

 

Yes, exactly. Look at the story and the timeline. Look at the way God comes across in the story. The God being portrayed is a humanized God to begin with. Its nothing more than a fictional story compiled together from older tribal myths where a personal idea of what God is like is being presented. It is God being discribed in man's image. The reason people do that is we have no other intelligent life to guide our ideas by other than us. If one is going to believe in a Creator the only way one can view that Creator is in human terms to begin with because we are human. It was normal then and its still normal to think of things that way. We create. So why would not God create is the line of thought. That leads to what and how did God create things. Before science came along people tried to answer that question the best they could. What you end up with is stories like this and others in the Bible. Sometimes they do relate historical situations, sometimes they do not. Thoughts, stories, and imagination are not wrong in and of themselves. Its how people use them that determines weither something is right or wrong. Knowledge can be good or bad. Its wisdom or lack of such that determines which it will be.

[Zohaar818]

Yes, exactly. Look at the story and the timeline. Look at the way God comes across in the story. The God being portrayed is a humanized God to begin with. Its nothing more than a fictional story compiled together from older tribal myths where a personal idea of what God is like is being presented. It is God being discribed in man's image. The reason people do that is we have no other intelligent life to guide our ideas by other than us. If one is going to believe in a Creator the only way one can view that Creator is in human terms to begin with because we are human. It was normal then and its still normal to think of things that way. We create. So why would not God create is the line of thought. That leads to what and how did God create things. Before science came along people tried to answer that question the best they could. What you end up with is stories like this and others in the Bible. Sometimes they do relate historical situations, sometimes they do not. Thoughts, stories, and imagination are not wrong in and of themselves. Its how people use them that determines weither something is right or wrong. Knowledge can be good or bad. Its wisdom or lack of such that determines which it will be.

 

I'm sort of with you on this..althougb i do think the Bible as we know it..[and in its original language] does contain some awfully relevant science and alludes to facts and circumstances that only an intelligence familiar with time-space manipulation...and the human genome could possess. I leave you to explore that thouroughly by surfing the relevant sites.

Here's one to get you started..one I hope Creationists, ID-er's and the science purists among the group will all avail themsleves of...

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/etcreation.html

No doubt it will lead to a much more enlightenbed and enlightening discussion on the subject.

 

Carpe Diem

Zohaar

[TeleMad]

Most moderate and liberal Christians don't tend to uphold that as anything more than a fiction story.

 

Yes, they are correct: Job is just a fiction story, as is the rest of the Bible.

 

PS: Sure, HISTORIC facts, like names of kings and cities, are true in the Bible, but the supernatural aspect is just the result of a bunch of ignorant, superstitious, drunk-much-of-the-time, people telling stories.

[TeleMad]

I have children. I have never imposed my own point of view to them. But I have always presented my own point of view to them.

 

This is the approach I take too. When my mother watches my boys she tells them about God. They then ask me questions - the most straightforward being, "Does God exist?" - instead of forcing my beliefs on them, I explain things to them.

 

For example, I'll explain logical positivism to them (without giving it a name). "If someone tells you there's a magical pink unicorn sitting in the car next to you, but you can't see it, touch it, hear it, or in any way confirm it exists, does it exist? Some people would say that it makes no sense to talk about something like that existing, so they say it doesn't exist. But others believe it exists without having to have it able to be demonstrated that it exists."

 

From there, they can make up their own minds. My oldest son doesn't believe in God, but my youngest does. While I believe my youngest is wrong, I am not going to force him to take my position.

 

PS: It's kind of interesting to look at their personalities. My oldest, who is an atheist, is very logical. My youngest, who is a believer, is very emotional.