The Gullibility of Evolutionists

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Bigwhammy

 

I know it's a quote from way back in the thread, but what the hell.

Do you know why Intelligent design isn't a valid scientific theory? Because it creates a paradox. Much like the Grandfather paradox that prevents backwards time travel from being a reality (At least, when working with linear models of time), Intelligent Design creates an infinite paradox

That's just it, though. Time is linear. The universe is not. How do you explain what is outside time? How does evolution solve the paradox? It would seem to me it presents exactly the same one.

Let's say there is a creator.
That creator is alive, or at least intellegent / programmed to some degree
That creator thus needs a creator, as the theory states all life is created
This creator's creator then also needs a creator... and then HE needs a creator... So on and so forth, so that we have an infinite loop of created beings that create other beings. In other words, in order for Intelligent Design to be plausable... we would know what the creator is, because the universe would be made of absolutely nothing except the creator and his creators. Every single iota of potential space in the whole of reality would be a single creator blob. TO say nothing of their OTHER creations.

The only solution to this paradox is that at some point, one of the creators was never created. Which invalidates the theory that "All things were created."

I think the relevant verse in the bible (and I can't quote it because I don't have it with me) says that "all things which are seen were created". Please correct me if you have a reference.

Either Intelligent Design creates an infinite loop of creators, or it invalidates its own premise.

As does Evolution. Because something caused evolution to take place. And something had to exist to cause evoltuion to take place. What was the something if it was not primoridal dust created from a big bang of building blocks of atomic material?

Because something caused evolution to take place. And something had to exist to cause evoltuion to take place. What was the something if it was not primoridal dust created from a big bang of building blocks of atomic material?

Flying spaghetti monster?

Say fox's scenario is right... wouldn't the infinite loop of creators explain omnipresence?



Isn't that what Fox believes any way God is everything?

I have a question for moderators, and anyone else who reads this.

Whay does a member have, in his 'signatue' line, a link to his music?

I know, this is not really part of the topic of this thread, but this ATS member has contributed to a great degree, not only on this thread.

Just wondering.

OK, discuss!

Originally posted by Bigwhammy




Say fox's scenario is right... wouldn't the infinite loop of creators explain omnipresence?



Isn't that what Fox believes any way God is everything?

Or something like that. I haven't quite figured it out yet, because there always seems to be support for everything.

reply to post by weedwhacker



Because I put it there... lots of people have links

reply to post by Bigwhammy

Yeah that was way off topic. I think that would be a u2u question to a moderator. Just my thought anyway. Might want to ask them how you do it if that's what you're interested in.

reply to post by idle_rocker




its there now????

it has been

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by idle_rocker

 

its there now????

it has been

Yeah, it's there. I was actually trying to respond to weedwhacker. You know how I get on these posts...kinda spastic

[edit on 3/5/08 by idle_rocker]

reply to post by idle_rocker



I think weedwacker is trying to stir up trouble because he made a stupid mistake last night...

he accused me of quoting something he didn't say,

But it was a bible verse I quoted woooosh over his head... he didn't understand it was a quote form the BIBLE

when i pointed out the verse numbers wasn't much left to say

Originally posted by weedwhacker
You mentioned hyprocrisy, I see irony. Your use of '[pseudo]' in brackets, very clever...and very wrong. THEN, there is a mention of 'one-sided' arguments!!! And, the reference to ...'forest for the trees'...

See, that is actually what I'm getting at and you hit the nail on the head. It is ironic. It is hypocritical.

As to the 'one sided' remark. I don't know what to say because it seems so obvious to me. Evolutionists say they need more time to 'figure it all out' and of course that is acceptable. But creationists have the right to 'figure it all out' in time as well. Again, the scientific methods used for testing are still very new. Both sides are still in their infancy.

When evolutionists are forced to retract something, even something that was so crazy it blows my mind as to how was ever accepted in the first place, it's just chalked up to Oops. Creationists also make mistakes (The Glenn Rose footprints always come to mind) with crazy stuff.

Evolutionists, for some reason, claim to have the science market cornered and have much of their dogma set in stone. Yes, it is a fluid process. That is fine. But there are some aspects they refuse to question. And there are too many examples where I have read regarding puzzle pieces being thrown out because they don't fit the dogma.

I see many creation scientists being treated like quacks in the field and made out to be fanatics. It doesn't matter if they have a PhD or attended Harvard: they 'religionists.' Many are not even listened to even when they bring up some solid objections to evolution. Or let's say a creation scientists discovers something. I have seen a few examples where secular evolutionary science hijacks it for use in their theories. I explained them in full on the last thread where you and I talked on the subject so I'll spare you the repetition.

Just my two cents. It looks like evolutionists often force the evidence to fit their theories but accuse creation scientists of doing the same thing. That is hypocrisy. And I'll spare you the quote hunt unless you want to see them but if you are a sensitive person some of the things secular evolutionists say concerning their science is pretty damn condescending to creation scientists.

It seems like the criticism of evolution and its evidence is being suppressed. No, it is not flawless but it is being made out to be more perfect than it actually is. That is bound to happen when you toss out anything that does not agree. When you toss out the complaints, the only thing left is compliments.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by idle_rocker

 

I think weedwacker is trying to stir up trouble because he made a stupid mistake last night...

he accused me of quoting something he didn't say,

But it was a bible verse I quoted woooosh over his head... he didn't understand it was a quote form the BIBLE

when i pointed out the verse numbers wasn't much left to say

'trying to stir up trouble'???? THAT is an incredible accusation.

I do not stir up trouble, I just point out the facts.

YOU quoted a bible verse? Well, good! Let's see it again!

I do not think the bible has anything to 'say' in our modern lives....it is a collection of parables, written by a variety of authors, over many years...and compliled from an oral history...and translated, and translated, and interpreted so many times....

I correct myself...some of the parables are indeed relevant, but it is not an in-errant document.

[edit on 5-3-2008 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker



Facts like the over reactive twisting of words I have called you on what 2 or 3 times now???

reply to post by AshleyD


Ash, 'more time to figure it all out'????


See, you are spreading falsehoods. What would Jesus do?

Originally posted by idle_rocker
That's just it, though. Time is linear. The universe is not. How do you explain what is outside time? How does evolution solve the paradox? It would seem to me it presents exactly the same one.

Well, there are several potential models for time, in fact... It tends to cause headache to discuss, though.

Evolution doesn't have this paradox. Evolution does not claim nor deny a "Creator." As others have told you, evolution does not worry about the creation of life or the universe. It simply talks about the method by which living beings diversify into species.

ID, on the other hand, does explicitly state, "there is a creator being". If the theory is sound, then that creator ALSO has a creator... which has a creator, etc. ID also suffers from the fact that it tries really hard to be a "grand unification theory" for all branches of life and earth sciences.

I think the relevant verse in the bible (and I can't quote it because I don't have it with me) says that "all things which are seen were created". Please correct me if you have a reference.

I thought Intelligent Design was a scientific theory in its own merit, and not religious-based?

As does Evolution. Because something caused evolution to take place. And something had to exist to cause evoltuion to take place. What was the something if it was not primoridal dust created from a big bang of building blocks of atomic material?

Again, you're talking about things outside the scope of the theory of evolution. This is like demanding that "gravitationists" explain the formation of mica.

Bigwhammy,

Say fox's scenario is right... wouldn't the infinite loop of creators explain omnipresence?

Isn't that what Fox believes any way God is everything?

Everything is God, actually. Subtle distinction. However, I freely acknowledge that my beliefs, whatever they may be, are not baseed in science, and are unlikely to be proven. Doesn't bother me terribly, as I don't see any areas where there's an incompatability.

HOWEVER, as I just asked... isn't ID a "scientific theory" rather than one based in religion? If so, then its creator(s) are actual, living, physical beings. Maybe infinitesimally small, or maybe gigantic on a scale we can't really comprehend. But they are real, they are physical, and the universe would be made of an infinite number of these beings, with absolutely no space between.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Ash, 'more time to figure it all out'????

I meant just what I said and what you quoted: More time to figure it out. Yes. Both sciences have existed for a length of time that is comparable to a drop in the bucket.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


He's either not very bright or just here to stir the $***, as they say. As he has done that MULTIPLE times this thread alone. I believe the latter.

reply to post by WraothAscendant


I sent him a u2u and asked if he wanted a CD since he was so interested in my music ...

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Betcha he's going to scream at me saying I said he wasn't very bright even though I gave it as two possibilities and then said I think he's just stirring the dooky. As I type this none the less.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Star for Walking Fox!!

oh my gosh! Was THAT a one-line post?

Heck, if Skeptic Overlord can say 'hell' in His post.....guess I didn't cross a boundary, I hope.

[edit on 5-3-2008 by weedwhacker]