Chicken, the Egg?, Creationist, the Evolutionist?

by skyking 15 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  skyking

  The thread Re: DID FOSSILS MAKE YOU DOUBT? makes me laugh at the creationist because they have the same hurdle to over come as does the evolutionist do. For the creationist can you tell me how GOD came from nothing? Is this not your argument that life can not come from nothing?t
  

  clovis said: Nor can anyone show us how matter can arise from nothing

  How could GOD start it all he came from nothing? This seams to me to be their biggest reason why they can't except evolution is; something can't come from nothing! But is that not what they believe? Both the evolutionist and the creationist are saying the same-thing that something [GOD] or [First life on earth] came from nothing. Where is the creationist coming from? What they claim can not be true because their own logic goes against them what they are saying must be true that {GOD CAME FROM NOTHING} is hypocritical.

  restrangled said: I am a firm believer in God creating everything..

  restrangled who created GOD? you have to answer this in order to assume creationism is correct? It is a paradox is it not.
• 

  kid-A

  You raise some excellent points.

  The creationist cannot use the old "something from nothing" canard without having the same criticism levelled at them. The typical response is "god just is" and had no beginning and no end. However, this has zero evidence to back it up and even worse, this ALSO kills the classic "design" argument of the creationist because if every "complex" entity in the universe had to have had a "designer", well most certainly, "god" who in their estimation is the supreme example of intelligence and complexity must have ALSO had a designer!

  Ergo, who "designed" god?
• 

  skyking

  I would love for a creationist to answer my question.

  As a creationist if you are mentally challenged there is no need to answer, but if you have the reasoning faculties please exsplain to me how you over come this, is it by faith?

  Is it not the same leap of faith at the start for both creationist and evolutionist?

  This is why for the exsact start of it all, I am neither, Evolutionist or Creationist. But once you get past the start Creationism is just silly too me. I could and and others here blow huge holes in creationism. But creationist have the same problem at the start so too me unless you can exspain this you do not follow reason only faith.
• 

  CyrusThePersian

  Hi!

  Most scientists most certainly do not believe that the universe arose ex nihilo, or out of nothing. The law of the conservation of mass-energy forbids it. The law states that mass-energy can neither be created or destroyed, it can only be changed. Albert Einstein showed that mass and energy are in reality the same thing. In his famous formula E=MC 2 he showed that energy equals mass times the velocity of light squared. Therefore at the time of the Big Bang no mass-energy was created, it simply changed in some catastrophic way. The fact that we do not know, and can never know, how mass-energy manifested itself in the moments before or after the Big Bang does not mean that nothing at all existed before the Big Bang.

  At least that's my two cents...

  CyrusThePersian
• 

  skyking

  But once again you have the question before the big bang where did the energy or mass came from. Man needs to find logic and so invents GOD so it becomes logical to them, GOD did it. GOD answers everything for them so there is no need for them think for themselves.
• 

  CyrusThePersian

  By its very nature (i.e. that it can neither be created or destroyed) mass-energy didn't "come from" anything. In some form or another it has always been around. Stephen Hawking recently described a phenomenon known as vacuum fluctuation in which particle matter seems to come out of seemingly empty space. Hawking and the scientists working under him discovered that even in a perfect vacuum in which all traditionally understood forms of matter and energy are absent, random electromagnetic oscillations are still present. These vacuum fluctuations are a form of energy which can be converted into matter in complete harmony with mass-energy conversion laws. In other words, the nothingness of a complete vacuum in empty space can and does produce matter in accord with Einstein's laws.

  My personal extrapolation is this: If mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed, then the universe, in one form or another, has always existed. There was never a time when the mass-energy of our universe did not exist, even if it was just in the form of an empty oscillating vacuum.

  CyrusThePersian
• 

  skyking

  Is that what GOD is in the every loose interpretation of GOD he or it is only energy. This energy has always existed and this is what Creationist interpret as God and Evolutionist have to agree upon that fact. GOD is not an individual but only energy that does not think and is not alive but is the only explanation for both sides. GOD is energy and only energy.
• 

  CyrusThePersian

  The problem is that if you interpret God in so loose a manner then he has no reason for being. In other words, if God is merely the mass- energy of the universe, why worship him? Why even acknowledge him? In fact, if you try to worship your mass-energy God, you are merely worshipping yourself, since you are mass-energy, as are your shoes, the bowl of oatmeal you had this morning and everything else in the universe.

  On the other hand, the mass-energy that I perceive has no personality, it exists and conforms itself according to principles that can be observed and measured. No ultra-complex super-deity need apply.

  CyrusThePersian
• 

  Leolaia

  My personal extrapolation is this: If mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed, then the universe, in one form or another, has always existed. There was never a time when the mass-energy of our universe did not exist, even if it was just in the form of an empty oscillating vacuum.

  But Hawking would say that it is nonsensical to think of a time before the emergence of our universe (e.g. like asking what is south of the south pole), since time began when the universe began. Only in the inflation of space-time does the difference between one moment to the next mean anything. The first moment (= the south pole) that corresponds to the universe before inflation is simply the moment directly before inflation...that moment in time is only "eternal" because there was nothing before that moment.
• 

  skyking

  That is how I feel. I noticed just as I thought it would happen not one creationist has committed on this thread is it so glaringly obvious to others that they can not defend their thinking of their GOD. They only can use terms such as GOD created all thing he always existed and because of him they explain everything so in reality thinking ability is no-longer part of the equation only faith.

  Evolutionist however rely on evidence for their conclusions

  Common Creationist defend your thinking if you can I dare you.