Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And even more so the Noah's Ark myth. That is a concept that almost any genre of engineering should be able to refute.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Looking for a debate with creationists (I am an atheist)
- Thread starter Sean1843
- Start date
And even more so the Noah's Ark myth. That is a concept that almost any genre of engineering should be able to refute.
exchemist
Veteran Member
And so often it is the engineers that are the creationists, or anti-relativists, or electric universe cranks. I've seen it so many times on science forums. I think it may be that they do not study nature.
Last edited:
And the law of fish and chips cannot account for egg fried rice. Which is just as irrelevant.
But another aspect of the laws of thermodynamics, i.e. entropy predicts life
Segev Moran
Well-Known Member
I'll play along for the debate sake.
I once shared your POV. life taught me otherwise.
Let's try and make this debate clean and ridicule free so we can actually accomplish something.
I will never try to convince you that there is a God. It is not my goal nor do i have the ability to do so.
I truly believe that once (and if) you will discover YOUR truth about God, it will be on your terms and only by your own mind and feelings.
I can only try and point you to some directions that will maybe help you understand the concept and "logic" behind creationism.
I put the word logic in quotes as logic is a subjective or collective concept.
Please do not mistake this with a secular logic that is only one type of logic we apply to try and understand our reality.
For the debate, lets decide that creationism is a term that mean the universe was created by an intelligent thought behind it and it is more than odds and physical probabilities.
The term God will be replaced with "creator" so it will not be related to any religious concept, rather the broad idea of a "random" universe versus a "designed" universe.
There are several options to the way the universe was created.
What i can think of are the ones listed below:
I will try and explain what i mean when i use a term that can be interpreted in several ways each first time i use the term.
1. The universe[observable universe, the one we can see, measure and feel] manifested from absence of anything. by that i mean a literal nothing. nothing that can not be measured, observed or even described. Nothing is a very delicate term to use, as a scientific "Nothing" is not an actual nothing.
2. The universe was manifested by a chain of events that might have caused many other universes to emerge. we are just one of an unknown number of universes, each has its own laws, its own timeline and its own "fate".
3. Same as 2, but the universe is one of many that are the same, but with a different timeline. this is many times described in the movies as a parallel universe(s). this is the same as the second option, but we share the same physical laws, the same energy and the same overall structure.
4. The universe was initiated with a specific purpose (it can be any purpose you might think of), meaning there was a reason or a goal for its creation. once created, the universe is no longer "governed" by an intelligent "observer", rather it has its own "algorithm" that keeps it up and running. in our case, it means the laws (physics) were set, and everything simply keeps following those laws and work based on them
5. The universe was initiated withe a specific goal and it is in a continuous state of "monitoring" and maintenance.
There is one fact we know and agree on. The universe exists.
It doesn't matter which of the above is right or wrong, we all experience the universe.
My life experience led me to believe that the 5th option is probably correct.
Your life experience led you to believe that 1 - 3 are probably correct.
(there are probably more ideas you can come up with, but i think the above 5 are enough to understand the concept for our debate).
As this post can take many more pages, can you in the meantime agree and the above?
If not, i would love to hear what i have left out.
cheers
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
First off when people are debating creationists they are usually debating deniers of evolution. You did a major redefinition of creationism there.I'll play along for the debate sake.
I once shared your POV. life taught me otherwise.
Let's try and make this debate clean and ridicule free so we can actually accomplish something.
I will never try to convince you that there is a God. It is not my goal nor do i have the ability to do so.
I truly believe that once (and if) you will discover YOUR truth about God, it will be on your terms and only by your own mind and feelings.
I can only try and point you to some directions that will maybe help you understand the concept and "logic" behind creationism.
I put the word logic in quotes as logic is a subjective or collective concept.
Please do not mistake this with a secular logic that is only one type of logic we apply to try and understand our reality.
For the debate, lets decide that creationism is a term that mean the universe was created by an intelligent thought behind it and it is more than odds and physical probabilities.
The term God will be replaced with "creator" so it will not be related to any religious concept, rather the broad idea of a "random" universe versus a "designed" universe.
There are several options to the way the universe was created.
What i can think of are the ones listed below:
I will try and explain what i mean when i use a term that can be interpreted in several ways each first time i use the term.
1. The universe[observable universe, the one we can see, measure and feel] manifested from absence of anything. by that i mean a literal nothing. nothing that can not be measured, observed or even described. Nothing is a very delicate term to use, as a scientific "Nothing" is not an actual nothing.
2. The universe was manifested by a chain of events that might have caused many other universes to emerge. we are just one of an unknown number of universes, each has its own laws, its own timeline and its own "fate".
3. Same as 2, but the universe is one of many that are the same, but with a different timeline. this is many times described in the movies as a parallel universe(s). this is the same as the second option, but we share the same physical laws, the same energy and the same overall structure.
4. The universe was initiated with a specific purpose (it can be any purpose you might think of), meaning there was a reason or a goal for its creation. once created, the universe is no longer "governed" by an intelligent "observer", rather it has its own "algorithm" that keeps it up and running. in our case, it means the laws (physics) were set, and everything simply keeps following those laws and work based on them
5. The universe was initiated withe a specific goal and it is in a continuous state of "monitoring" and maintenance.
There is one fact we know and agree on. The universe exists.
It doesn't matter which of the above is right or wrong, we all experience the universe.
My life experience led me to believe that the 5th option is probably correct.
Your life experience led you to believe that 1 - 3 are probably correct.
(there are probably more ideas you can come up with, but i think the above 5 are enough to understand the concept for our debate).
As this post can take many more pages, can you in the meantime agree and the above?
If not, i would love to hear what i have left out.
cheers
Second, your argument fails when one realizes that all you have done is to shift the goal posts a bit. What created the creator? If the universe needs a creator then by the same logic so does the creator, and then that would need one etc. and so on. It is better to face this problem properly. There is no evidence for a creator or even an apparent need of one. It is best to withhold belief until one has sufficient evidence to believe. You provided no evidence, merely a failed argument. I am not saying that there definitely is no God, but to say one exists we need something a lot stronger than what you provided.
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
There is indeed a mark of intelligence left in our genetic code as evident by how the numeric and semantic message of 037 appears in our genetic code. Each codon relates to 3 other particular codons having the same particular type of initial nucleobase and sequential nucleobase subsequently then followed by a different ending nucleobase. Half of these 4 set of codon groups ( whole family codons ) each code for the same particular amino acid. The other half of those 4 set of codon groups ( split codons ) don't code for the same amino acid. So then, in the case of whole family codons, there are 37 amino acid peptide chain nucleons for each relevant nucleobase determinant of how a particular amino acid gets coded. Start codons express 0 at the beginning of 37 Hence, the meaningful numeric and semantic message of 037 gets unambiguously and factually conveyed to us descendants of our cosmic ancestor(s) with our genetic code invented by a superior intelligence beyond that of anybody presently bound to Earth.
“There is no plausible chemical logic to couple directly the triplets and the amino acids. In other words, the principles of chemistry where not the sought essence of the genetic code”
“The zero is the supreme abstraction of arithmetic. Its use by any alphabet, including the genetic code, can be an indicator of artificiality.”
"The place-value decimal system represented through digital symmetry of the numbers divisible by prime number (PN 037). This arithmetical syntactic feature is an innate attribute of the genetic code. The PN 037 notation with a leading zero emphasizes zero's equal participation in the digital symmetry. Numbers written by identical digits are devised by PN 037*3=111 and 1+1+1=3 and appear regularly [from the figure: 037*6 =222 and 2+2+2=6, 037*9=333 and 3+3+3 =9, 037*4=444 and 4+4+4=12, 037*15=555 and 5+5+5=15, 037*18=666 and 6+6+6=18, 037*21=777 and 7+7+7 =21. 037*24 =888 and 8+8+8=24, 037*27=999 and 9+9+9=27.)"
"There is a complete set of information symbols utilizing the decimal syntax 111, 222, 333, 444, 555, 666, 777, 888, 999 in the genetic code. Each of these symbols consists uniformly of a carrier (balanced nucleons) and a meaning (the decimal syntax)."
Reference: The "Wow! signal" of the terrestrial genetic code. Vladimir l. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov.Redirectinghttps://www.scribd.com/document/35302916...netic-Code
This informational and artificial characteristic of the WOW signal of the terrestrial genetic code demonstrates extraterrestrial intelligent design.
This intelligent signal transmitted via genetic code that has been documented and confirmed by scientists researching the WOW signal of the terrestrial genetic code is prima facie evidence for an extraterrestrial intelligent designer.
The authors who discovered this mark of intelligence embedded in our genetic code show that "the terrestrial code displays a thorough precision-type orderliness matching the criteria to be considered an informational signal. Simple arrangements of the code reveal an ensemble of arithmetical and ideographical patterns of the same symbolic language. Accurate and systematic, these underlying patterns appear as a product of precision logic and nontrivial computing rather than of stochastic processes (the null hypothesis that they are due to chance coupled with presumable evolutionary pathways is rejected with P-value < 10–13). The patterns are profound to the extent that the code mapping itself is uniquely deduced from their algebraic representation. The signal displays readily recognizable hallmarks of artificiality, among which are the symbol of zero, the privileged decimal syntax and semantical symmetries. Besides, extraction of the signal involves logically straightforward but abstract operations, making the patterns essentially irreducible to any natural origin. Plausible ways of embedding the signal into the code and possible interpretation of its content are discussed. Overall, while the code is nearly optimized biologically, its limited capacity is used extremely efficiently to pass non-biological information."
Reference: The "Wow! signal" of the terrestrial genetic code. Vladimir l. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov.Redirectinghttps://www.scribd.com/document/35302916...netic-Code
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
Directed panspermia and evolution are not mutually exclusive of one another.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, but there is no evidence of the former. Woo papers do not count as evidence.
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
If forward contamination of Mars were to be confirmed, then interplanetary directed panspemia will simply be a matter of fact. Unfortunately, interstellar directed panspermia will likely be far more difficult to prove.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Boy did you come to the right place. LOL!!!
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
Stroke?
Engineer as well here. (4 degrees in engineering, over 25 patents and 42 years if technical experience in industry)
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
Actually, it is consistent.
Love your enemies is a way partly to appeal to them to repent
because a terrible crisis of judgement is coming otherwise
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
Actually you can be as eccentric as you want but unless you know God it ain't gunna help.
That is not love at all. True love is forgiveness. True love shows Grace.
dad
Undefeated
God living in billions of people over history and today and working and manifesting Himself to them.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
I haven't been able to change your view, Subduction?
I think I mentioned, it was the process of "subduction" which
created the first continents. If you recall, the early earth was
a cloud and ocean planet.
What is "creationism" ??
There are two theories about how the universe came to be
1 - it was here all along
2 - it sprang into being, either by magic or by God.
.
So there you have it, we either dodge the question completely
or we revert to God or magic.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, you are conflating modern continents with areas above the ocean. The early Earth would have been rather dry. At least compared to now. Water was locked up largely inside the Earth. The continents were a product of subduction, and the oceans were too. When the circulation that drove divergence and subduction began that was also when the water for the Earth's oceans would have come out of the interior of the Earth.
No, there are no theories involving God. Once again you can prove it yourself. What reasonable test would show the God beliefs to be wrong? Nor does there seem to be a theory that says the universe was always here. I am sure that the OP wanted to debate those that believed the more standard Adam and Eve type of creationist.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
The oceans came from beneath the earth, and above through the process
of ice bombardment (same as the Sth Pole of the moon.)
The oceans weren't so much a product of subduction as in helping to create
it in the first place.
Arguments about God don't fall under falsifiability rules. If God exists outside
of the universe (as He must as He created it) then "proving" Him is problematic.
What we can do is look at the claims made by God (ie biblical history, prophecy
etc..) to see if these things happened or not.
The OP might want to just debate Adam and Eve, if so he's just picking his/her
battles carefully.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, that is a largely discarded hypothesis. Isotopic analysis shows that the oceans did not come from comets.
And thanks for admitting that there are no God theories.