A factual digression concerning evolution and creation

There are only two ways in which anything can come to be.Either it is intentional or accidental :that is ,either someone intended it or it merely chanced.Things that are intentional have purpose,accidents do not.Humanity, like other things, must be either an accident and so purposeless,or else have been made with intent. My personal belief is that Humans, being male and female do indeed have "intent". Thus being, as humans we procreate.The argument of "were we created" holds more truth than the alternative, being that we have no purpose and evolved as a result of a Big Bang..

I find the accident concept far more plausable. It would be nice to think that 13 billion years ago, a deity decided to set in motion a series of events that would eventually form the universe, the stars, and in time, this planet, life, and all so that I could one day be sitting behind my computer, eating hot pockets, and contemplating existance.

but that seems a bit silly to me...still, would be nice to pretend

Originally posted by oliveoil
There are only two ways in which anything can come to be.Either it is intentional or accidental :that is ,either someone intended it or it merely chanced.Things that are intentional have purpose,accidents do not.Humanity, like other things, must be either an accident and so purposeless,or else have been made with intent. My personal belief is that Humans, being male and female do indeed have "intent". Thus being, as humans we procreate.The argument of "were we created" holds more truth than the alternative, being that we have no purpose and evolved as a result of a Big Bang..

Very interesting way of looking at it.

I'll play devils advocate and add that it could be both. The purpose of the universe and everything within-it could be expansion, reproduction. That is the purpose and all means of accomplishing that purpose could be unintended or accidental. So in there you have an intended design which is accomplished through accidents.

Human's could be a consequential accident that just perpetuates the ultimate goal of the universe which is expansion/reproduction.

I wouldn't necessarily conclude humans were intended simply because they can reproduce. The reproduction is all that is intended which is why all living creatures can do so in one form or another.

Originally posted by oliveoil
There are only two ways in which anything can come to be.Either it is intentional or accidental :that is ,either someone intended it or it merely chanced.Things that are intentional have purpose,accidents do not.Humanity, like other things, must be either an accident and so purposeless,or else have been made with intent. My personal belief is that Humans, being male and female do indeed have "intent". Thus being, as humans we procreate.The argument of "were we created" holds more truth than the alternative, being that we have no purpose and evolved as a result of a Big Bang..

This is a classic example of a logical fallacy called a bifurcation fallacy, presenting a limit of two choices. When a packet of water vapor cools by convective lifting and a water droplet forms and falls, was it "created" by the old white guy in the sky or is it "accidental?" Or is it perhaps a consequence of natural laws that control phase changes? Creationism is the easy way out for those who can't devote the time necessary to really understanding science, and who just throw up their hands and say "Jebus did it."

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by oliveoil
There are only two ways in which anything can come to be.Either it is intentional or accidental :that is ,either someone intended it or it merely chanced.Things that are intentional have purpose,accidents do not.Humanity, like other things, must be either an accident and so purposeless,or else have been made with intent. My personal belief is that Humans, being male and female do indeed have "intent". Thus being, as humans we procreate.The argument of "were we created" holds more truth than the alternative, being that we have no purpose and evolved as a result of a Big Bang..

This is a classic example of a logical fallacy called a bifurcation fallacy, presenting a limit of two choices. When a packet of water vapor cools by convective lifting and a water droplet forms and falls, was it "created" by the old white guy in the sky or is it "accidental?" Or is it perhaps a consequence of natural laws that control phase changes? Creationism is the easy way out for those who can't devote the time necessary to really understanding science, and who just throw up their hands and say "Jebus did it."

You have to leave room for the question of "how" all these rules and facts of science came to be though. I am as agnostic as it gets and sit completely on the fence, however I cannot answer why the laws of physics work the way they do allowing for the universe to exist in the way it does which in turn allows US to exist and live in the manner we do.

Self aware conscious beings aren't necessarily an easily predicted anomaly or even an easily replicable anomaly of science. There are a lot of unknown variables and conditions at work here we simply don't understand yet. So to make any conclusions one way or the other is basically painting yourself in a corner.

reply to post by oliveoil


I'll also add the possibility and example that penicillin was an accident which now has a purpose. Consider that example and apply it to your logic and you will come up with a paradox.

Is purpose in any form or another just a perception of how something acts/behaves? I could rationalize a purpose behind anything in existence, rocks, dirt, etc. Does this imply humans are no different then rocks and dirt in the overall function of the universe?

Originally posted by oliveoil
Things that are intentional have purpose,accidents do not.

How do you know that accidents don't have purpose? If this is the basis of your following conclusions, you have to prove this is true first.

Humanity, like other things, must be either an accident and so purposeless,or else have been made with intent.

Nature does things with intent. Nature could be "the creator".

Too many times, we, with our limited intellect, think we know certain things, but we really don't. We make statements like "Things that are intentional have purpose. Accidents do not", without really knowing if it's true or not. There could be many other explanations that we haven't discovered yet. We simply don't know.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Nature does things with intent. Nature could be "the creator".

Please show some proof that nature does anything with intent.

reply to post by Kailassa


Forest fires happen naturally and are critical to the health of the forest, giving access to sunlight to the new saplings.

Wolves have the natural instinct to eat the entrails of their prey first with the intent of gaining the most nutrients.

The sex drive is nature in action. The intent of the sex drive is procreation.

I'll argue right here that the only purpose in the universe is "transformation of energy" from one state to another in a cyclic perpetual manner.

The means to accomplish the transformation of energy are not necessarily intended or designed but rather by consequence of their own existence are obligated to function in a manner that serves the "purpose" ie: transformation of energy.

vague and general I know, but really the only semblance of a conclusion one can accurately make.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

How do you know that accidents don't have purpose?

Because they are accidents. They have no apparent or deliberate cause.Any dictionary will prove this.

Question, when you say the word "nature" what exactly are you referring to? material things?

reply to post by 4nsicphd

Creationism is the easy way out for those who can't devote the time necessary to really understanding science, and who just throw up their hands and say "Jebus did it."

This is nonsense. Science studies the constitution of matter-what things are made of.However no science can study the two far more vital questions- by whome were they made,and for what were they made.Thus meaning purpose.

reply to post by Sly1one

I'll argue right here that the only purpose in the universe is "transformation of energy"

Is this energy you speak of physical energy?

Originally posted by oliveoil
reply to post by Sly1one

 

I'll argue right here that the only purpose in the universe is "transformation of energy"

Is this energy you speak of physical energy?

doesn't matter energy is energy. When you break it all down its all the same stuff.

Originally posted by oliveoil
Because they are accidents. They have no apparent or deliberate cause.

How can you say that an accidental pregnancy (for example) has no deliberate cause? Do you know enough to make that statement? I don't think so. I don't think anybody does.

Question, when you say the word "nature" what exactly are you referring to?

The creative and controlling force of the Universe.

reply to post by Sly1one


Its your argument. Energy you speak of is either material or not.If it is material it contains matter.Material things either evolved by accident (which have no meaning) or were created.

Originally posted by oliveoil
Material things either evolved by accident (which have no meaning) or were created.

You have made the statement several times that "accidents have no meaning". How do you know this?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by oliveoil
Because they are accidents. They have no apparent or deliberate cause.

How can you say that an accidental pregnancy (for example) has no deliberate cause? Do you know enough to make that statement? I don't think so. I don't think anybody does.

No pregnancy is accidental. The will is to copulate. (no vagina ever accidentally slipped and fell onto a penis)The intent to copulate is no accident

Question, when you say the word "nature" what exactly are you referring to?

The creative and controlling force of the Universe.

Who created and controls this force?
this statement makes no sense at all.

Originally posted by oliveoil
reply to post by Sly1one

 

Its your argument. Energy you speak of is either material or not.If it is material it contains matter.Material things either evolved by accident (which have no meaning) or were created.

well to argue any further we have to go into quantum physics/mechanics, how familiar are you with those theories?

For the sake of keeping this on topic, all energy is energy regardless of what "state" it is in. Material, atomic, or subatomic its all moving and that entails "energy" the transformation of that energy is what I am saying is the ultimate purpose.

Objects with mass will always have energy because their parts that make them up are moving on the atomic and subatomic level. movement = energy and energy = movement it is a circular transformation of energy states that allows for this perpetual force called the universe to exist. That is the only observable and objective purpose that can be attributed to the universe and existence. Its the only accurate claim one could make regarding the purpose of the universe. Everything else is subject to relative opinion/beliefs/rebuttal.

You cannot refute that energy exists and that it cannot be created or destroyed but can only transform.

Reasons given for creationism:

Order and design in the universe. A remarkable variety of life, perfectly adapted to it's environment. Dazzling sunsets, the expanse of stars in the cosmos. The love of a spouse, a friend, a child.

I do believe that the earth was created. I believe the creator was the laws of physics. No god was needed. Not the first inkling of a supernatural power. The things that used to be attributed to supernatural powers such as tornados, earthquakes, eclipses, lightening have ALL been explained by naturally occurring events. ANY time a "supernatural" event can be studied - it CAN be explained by natural forces at work. There are absolutely ZERO cases of a supernatural event standing as such when it can be scrutinized.
It is senseless to go into debates with creationists because they will pick and pick and pick until they find a gap and IMMEDIATELY shove their god into it and claim that's where he resides. They will belittle the science that revealed the answers to the origins of life yet don't question it a bit whenever they need an antibiotic, and aspirin, make a phone call or watch tv. They know exactly where to find all of the answers they need to quell any nagging questions they have pertaining to the origin of life. Ask nearly any half-credible scientists. Why is it that so many scientists don't believe in a god? If there was a creator, don't you think they would have found some shred of evidence that couldn't also be passed off as naturally occurring? Why would so many people, objectively studying life in detail NOT be able to see that evolution was false, and that the only way life could possibly be here were through a creator? Out of all the scientists worldwide, do you NOT think that at least a few of them would be whistle-blowers on the whole scam?
Why would god design the earth to make it look like everything evolved, and that everything happened due to naturally occurring forces - why would he make us as we are made? Why would he invent smallpox, and polio, and malaria? Why would he let us suffer as we have suffered at our own hands IN HIS NAME. If I am wrong, and there IS a god...he is far more malevolent and evil than the devil is made out to be and we are ALL in big trouble. Me, being an "imperfect" parent and not willing to let my children suffer at all. If they are sick, I am there. If they fall, I am there. If they are hungry, they get fed. What sort of parent would I be if I refused to feed them for a week, just to teach them a lesson? What would I be if they fell, and I saw them bleeding - and heard them crying out to me for help, and I did nothing? What kind of parent that is worthy of being a parent would do nothing to help their own child?
If you are content with your superstitious belief system, I urge you to keep it and stop asking questions. The more you know and understand, the fewer gaps will there be for god to reside in.