Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:13:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4789 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> I think my own explanation is that your question forces conditions that
> weren't. Like me asking you if you stopped killing babies or some nonsense
> like that, since you never *were* killing babies in the first place.
> Essentially, there *is* no "before" the Big Bang. Humans perceive time (and
> space for that matter) as some sort of Newtonian line, going forever
> backwards and forwards-- but really, it's not. Energy defines time, and visa
> versa. Hence, with no energy, there's no time, and without time, there's no
> energy. And since matter & energy are the same, yadda yadda... Basically the
> answer is that it's a big kludge, and the question is kinda making
> assumptions it shouldn't be making.
I can accept the matter and energy thing, but wouldn't that suppose that life
and non-life are merely facets of the same thing, which would suggest that
evolution and cosmology are intertwined?
> However, I think the best explanation is that time is *curved*. Hence, the
> universe is curved back upon itself. What was before the Big Bang? We were.
> Right now is before *and* after the Big Bang. Similar to California being
> west of Maryland. Is it west of Maryland? Yes. But it's *also* east of
> Maryland if you go around the world far enough.
Yes. It is a paradox, and thus illogical (at least to our understanding)
> > At some point, you'd have to acknowledge that some
> > stuff came from nowhere, which seems illogical within the perimeters of
> > evolution (to me, at least).
> Well, I'd pose the same question on Creationism. Where'd God come from?
Precisely. But my point is that whether you believe in Evolution or believe in
Creationism, both POVs require the same leap of faith, or whatever you want to
call it. Neither one, it seems to me, explains our universe any better than
the other.
> The other thing that always gets me about Creationism is that Creationists
> often say something like "I can't imagine something as complex as a human
> being something that came out of non-sentient thought". Or something to the
> effect of the universe being too beautiful and complex a place to NOT be the
> creation of some being with a specific intent. But I just reverse that on
> anyone who says such a thing: I can't imagine God being something that's not
> the product of some non-sentient being. God's too fancy and amazing and
> complicated to be something naturally occurring-- so I can't accept the
> explanation that "God was *always* there" or some such. That just doesn't
> jive with me...
I agree with you. Both explanations lack logic; it just seems to me that it
really wouldn't matter *intellectually* which one one held to be true.
What I am reacting to is the notion that a belief in God is somehow
anti-intellectual or intellectually compromising.
-John
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) Evolution isn't trying to explain the universe. You seem to be stumbling over that. (...) Now *THIS* I can agree with (the reaction, not the notion). It's an impression I've had for a long time in .debate, although I don't think anyone's (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) I'd sure say so. One root problem being (I think) that science has an awful definition of what it means to be alive. Evolution wants to separate itself from cosmology because it doesn't really have anything to say about the Big Bang or the (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) I think my own explanation is that your question forces conditions that weren't. Like me asking you if you stopped killing babies or some nonsense like that, since you never *were* killing babies in the first place. Essentially, there *is* no (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
