SUCS Forum

Discussion for Swansea University Computer Society members

You are not logged in.

#16 2008-11-12 10:43:20

wedge
From: Swansea, UK

Re: Creation - the untold story

It's not really "two sides of an argument" if one side has fairly solid proof etc. and the other has a view totally based around faith. I have nothing against Christians, or anyone of any other religion as long as they accept that they have their beliefs and I have mine and it is just as futile for them to try and change my mind as it is for me to change theirs. I've read a lot that indicates we evolved etc. that fits in with what I observe myself in the universe and nothing at all written from a Creationist perspective that fits in with my observations.


Saving the world so you don't have to.

Offline

 

#17 2008-11-12 20:17:40

foshjedi2004
From: High Wycombe

Re: Creation - the untold story

wedge you speak with much wisdom.  And I agree with you.

I believe that "something" has made the universe work at the exact degree of accuracy required for life on this planet however I'm happy to be ignorant about the exact details.

IF there is an almighty being who created us and I ever meet it.  I'll buy it a drink for a job well done smile


SUCS Publicity Officer
Materials Engineering Level 2 Course Rep
Engineering and Science Faculty Rep

Offline

 

#18 2008-11-12 23:20:12

firefury
From: Swansea
Website

Re: Creation - the untold story

foshjedi2004 wrote:

IF there is an almighty being who created us and I ever meet it.  I'll buy it a drink for a job well done smile

I dunno, the universe looks like a complete cockup to me smile


- Steve
     xmpp:steve@nexusuk.org     sip:steve@nexusuk.org

Offline

 

#19 2008-11-13 01:48:01

cmckenna
From: Essex/London border
Website

Re: Creation - the untold story

firefury wrote:

foshjedi2004 wrote:

IF there is an almighty being who created us and I ever meet it.  I'll buy it a drink for a job well done smile

I dunno, the universe looks like a complete cockup to me smile

I reckon the universe is a beta version - most things work but there are still things that need to be fixed before release. However as we're still here, it's more likely that any almighty being or beings is/are using the Microsoft strategy and this is both beta and release - overdue for replacement but feature creep and managerial ineptitude mean it'll be around for some time to come. Life is probably just malware, increasing exponentially and gradually consuming all the system resources.


Moderator of the SUCS Jokes list
                                        — ∽ — ∽ —
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart
― Antione de St Exupery

Offline

 

#20 2008-11-13 10:11:56

foshjedi2004
From: High Wycombe

Re: Creation - the untold story

cmckenna wrote:

I reckon the universe is a beta version - most things work but there are still things that need to be fixed before release. However as we're still here, it's more likely that any almighty being or beings is/are using the Microsoft strategy and this is both beta and release - overdue for replacement but feature creep and managerial ineptitude mean it'll be around for some time to come. Life is probably just malware, increasing exponentially and gradually consuming all the system resources.

Thats an... Interesting.. Point of View cmc, and to be fair i can see where you are coming from with that analagy.


SUCS Publicity Officer
Materials Engineering Level 2 Course Rep
Engineering and Science Faculty Rep

Offline

 

#21 2008-11-13 10:44:10

Re: Creation - the untold story

*sigh* How can you possibly say that we should "gather together two sides of the argument" and then say:

uberduber wrote:

I don't feel the need to know so much that I will believe stories made up by scientists to make an excuse for their disbelief in creation.

If you are not willing to look at scientific evidence yourself why bother posting asking people to look at the "evidence" for creationism?

Last edited by tobeon (2008-11-13 10:44:33)

Offline

 

#22 2008-11-13 16:15:17

Re: Creation - the untold story

uberduber wrote:

I don't feel the need to know so much that I will believe stories made up by scientists to make an excuse for their disbelief in creation.

It turns out ignorance really is bliss wink

Offline

 

#23 2008-11-13 16:47:40

uberduber
From: Swansea
Website

Re: Creation - the untold story

tobeon wrote:

*sigh* How can you possibly say that we should "gather together two sides of the argument" and then say:

uberduber wrote:

I don't feel the need to know so much that I will believe stories made up by scientists to make an excuse for their disbelief in creation.

If you are not willing to look at scientific evidence yourself why bother posting asking people to look at the "evidence" for creationism?

Sorry if you haven't inferred it already based on where I live, I have been bombarded with the stuff about evolution/big bang from birth. Until less than a year ago I was an evolutionist, less than two years ago I was a hardcore atheist.

I used to rip the piss out of Christians, and even after becoming one I mocked creationism. This was because I thought I knew it all from my past "knowledge".

I was taught a lot of it in school, watched a lot of documentaries, read a lot of books, newspaper stories, magazine articles, websites on evolution/big bang.

Basically when I first reasoned that we couldn't have evolved because there is really no solid evidence for it, just inferring things based on presuppositions, I realised that well, ok maybe God just made a load of animals and stuff at different points in time? I mean its obvious we know how old everything is so the age the bible gives is nonsensical?

I didn't know that dating methods are flawed due to them being based on presuppositions and conditions which can't actually be met unless in a highly controlled laboratory situation.

But apparently now there are aeroplanes THOUSANDS of years old that have crashed and been buried in ice. Or maybe, the ice isn't that old? And leaves that have been buried over years, those are som resilient leaves!

Whale fossil almost upright.. that was one patient whale - just waiting to be covered! No scavengers or anything eating at it.
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_or … _whale.txt
Here the whale fossil is refuted - based on the assumption the world is billions of years old. Every argument is based on the belief that the world is a certain age.

Oldest trees are like.. 4-5000 years, first generation forests with bark immune to fire.

Did you know they used to have problems with European history? Because there is only a few thousand years, when they thought they had absolutely 1000s of years of history elsewhere? Then later found out that many rulers were simply ruling sidebyside with sons and brothers, time was disappearing, bringing it far more in line with European.

When they discover according to their own reasoning that a certain creature was actually around at the same time as humans that they previously thought was millions of years older, they simply... cut out a few million years and here we are. Cutting away time.

Its all about pride and refusing to acknowledge divine intervention. We all like to think we know everything.
Beware - I am quoting scripture. Not for evidence but for reason.
"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse"
Without excuse for what? For believing. If you accept creation, you accept the bible simple as.

Offline

 

#24 2008-11-13 16:49:21

uberduber
From: Swansea
Website

Re: Creation - the untold story

firefury wrote:

I also don't see the need to invent a _more_ complex theory (creationism) to try and explain away something that we don't yet fully understand.  Occam's razor suggests that the simplest explanation is usually the best - inventing much more complex hypotheses which answer _fewer_ questions than the accepted simpler theories seems silly.

Well to be honest:

worldinsideme wrote:

Nothing about the model of the early universe is simple. Too much quantum mechanics.

Offline

 

#25 2008-11-13 17:32:50

cmckenna
From: Essex/London border
Website

Re: Creation - the untold story

uberduber wrote:

But apparently now there are aeroplanes THOUSANDS of years old that have crashed and been buried in ice. Or maybe, the ice isn't that old? And leaves that have been buried over years, those are som resilient leaves!

Please cite your source for this, I've spent 20 minutes googling and not come up with anything remotely like this.

uberduber wrote:

Oldest trees are like.. 4-5000 years, first generation forests with bark immune to fire.

Again, please cite your sources for this. Wikipedia cites the oldest living tree at over 9000 years old.

uberduber wrote:

Did you know they used to have problems with European history? Because there is only a few thousand years, when they thought they had absolutely 1000s of years of history elsewhere? Then later found out that many rulers were simply ruling sidebyside with sons and brothers, time was disappearing, bringing it far more in line with European.

Sources please.

uberduber wrote:

When they discover according to their own reasoning that a certain creature was actually around at the same time as humans that they previously thought was millions of years older, they simply... cut out a few million years and here we are. Cutting away time.

Please see http://xkcd.com/285/

uberduber wrote:

Its all about pride and refusing to acknowledge divine intervention. We all like to think we know everything.

Actually, I can't see anyone here that is refusing to acknowledge divine intervention.

Foshjedi2004 wrote:

I believe that "something" has made the universe work at the exact degree of accuracy required for life on this planet.
IF there is an almighty being who created us and I ever meet it.  I'll buy it a drink for a job well done smile

FireFury wrote:

[T]here is no reason why a creator couldn't have set these constants appropriately to get the desired result and then started the universe running

The above two quotes say to me that Fosh and FF are explicitly acknowledging that their might have been action by a divine being (or beings), but that there is no proof.

Slightly tangentially, "intervention" is an interesting choice of words here. To intervene in something it has to exist. In order to create something it must not exist. Given this, how can the creation of the universe be an "intervention"?

uberduber wrote:

If you accept creation, you accept the bible simple as.

Fair enough, but that doesn't mean you have to accept it as a literal (rather than metaphorical) account. Nor does it mean that if you accept the bible that you accept creation (in formal logic terms: Because A implies B does not mean that B implies A). Also it does not mean that if you accept evolution that you don't accept the bible.


Moderator of the SUCS Jokes list
                                        — ∽ — ∽ —
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart
― Antione de St Exupery

Offline

 

#26 2008-11-13 17:47:58

saya
From: Swansea

Re: Creation - the untold story

cmckenna wrote:

uberduber wrote:

But apparently now there are aeroplanes THOUSANDS of years old that have crashed and been buried in ice. Or maybe, the ice isn't that old? And leaves that have been buried over years, those are som resilient leaves!

Please cite your source for this, I've spent 20 minutes googling and not come up with anything remotely like this.

No source, but I like this idea. It reminds me of things I've heard about old civilisations and the idea of the level of tech they had rising and falling during all of the time we've had people (of some kind) on earth smile I think there was something in a book about stone carvings that look *a lot* like helicopters but they are incredbily old.

Offline

 

#27 2008-11-13 17:49:43

firefury
From: Swansea
Website

Re: Creation - the untold story

uberduber wrote:

we couldn't have evolved because there is really no solid evidence for it

Even if there were no evidence, that doesn't prove anything - even if there were no evidence for evolution, this wouldn't prove that it couldn't have happened and that all life must've been magicked up by some creator (for which there is also no evidence).

In reality, there is a lot of evidence for evolution.  In fact, it is observed in the lab on a daily basis by microbiologists.

Its all about pride and refusing to acknowledge divine intervention. We all like to think we know everything.

No, it is nothing to do with "refusing to acknowledge" anything - it is about weighing the evidence.  There is a lot of evidence from many different scientific disciplines which does quite a good job of modeling the past, there is precisely no evidence that a creator magicked everything up.

Even if *all* the scientific evidence was found to be wrong, that doesn't change the fact that there is *no* evidence for your creationist hypotheses, so claiming that creationism "must" be the correct explanation is nonsensical.

Also, you still haven't explained why, when you firmly believe that no intelligence created God, you can't entertain the idea that the universe could exist without having been created by an intelligence.  If you accept that *something* (God) can exist without having been created by an intelligence then surely you must accept that *anything* can exist without having been created by an intelligence.  If this is not the case, please explain why not.

Beware - I am quoting scripture. Not for evidence but for reason.

Without excuse for what? For believing. If you accept creation, you accept the bible simple as.

I can't see how the quoted scripture is at all relevant to the conversation.

However, as I have pointed out in the past, belief that the universe was created by an intelligence doesn't require that you throw out hundreds of years of scientific evidence.  Even if you assume the bible contains some truth about the creation of the universe, you must accept that the bible was written thousands of years ago - if there is a God and she chose to create the universe and life using a big bang and evolution, there's no way that the bible would explain this since the people who wrote the bible wouldn't have understood any of it - what use is a book to a person thousands of years ago if it talks about quantum physics and genetics?

firefury wrote:

I also don't see the need to invent a _more_ complex theory (creationism) to try and explain away something that we don't yet fully understand.  Occam's razor suggests that the simplest explanation is usually the best - inventing much more complex hypotheses which answer _fewer_ questions than the accepted simpler theories seems silly.

Well to be honest:

worldinsideme wrote:

Nothing about the model of the early universe is simple. Too much quantum mechanics.

I never said the scientific theories were simple - I said they were simpler than the creationist hypotheses, which add a serious complication: where did God come from?

If you're going to try and contradict science, you need some evidence that is better than the existing scientific evidence - this is evidence that you have so far failed to produce.


- Steve
     xmpp:steve@nexusuk.org     sip:steve@nexusuk.org

Offline

 

#28 2008-11-13 18:01:09

Re: Creation - the untold story

cmckenna wrote:

Again, please cite your sources for this. Wikipedia cites the oldest living tree at over 9000 years old.

LMAO, how old?

Offline

 

#29 2008-11-13 19:28:42

cmckenna
From: Essex/London border
Website

Re: Creation - the untold story

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree#Oldest_trees

The verified oldest measured ages are:

   1. Norway Spruce Picea abies: 9,550 years[26]
   2. Baobab, Adansonia digitata: 6,000 years according to carbon dating [27]
   3. Great Basin Bristlecone Pine (Methuselah) Pinus longaeva: 4,844 years[28]
   4. Alerce Fitzroya cupressoides: 3,622 years[28]
   5. Giant Sequoia Sequoiadendron giganteum: 3,266 years[28]
   6. Huon-pine Lagarostrobos franklinii: 2,500 years[28]
   7. Rocky Mountains Bristlecone Pine Pinus aristata: 2,435 years[28]

Other species suspected of reaching exceptional age include European Yew Taxus baccata (probably over 2,000 years[29][30]) and Western Redcedar Thuja plicata.


Moderator of the SUCS Jokes list
                                        — ∽ — ∽ —
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart
― Antione de St Exupery

Offline

 

#30 2008-11-13 20:55:56

Re: Creation - the untold story

What about the natural fission reactor at Oklo? For it to have occured the earth has to be older than ~1.5billion years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nu … on_reactor

Offline

 

Board footer

Powered by PunBB
© Copyright 2002–2008 PunBB