Rationalism

This forum is for the discussion of the evidence for evolution. Anyone is welcome to post, however, scripture is not allowed. As the title says, Science Only please!

Moderator: Moderators

Rationalism

Postby Anonymous » Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:07 pm

I posed the following question to the writer of a letter to the Times about creationist material being sent to schools. Which of these two statements is the more rational?

1 Nothing created everything from nothing.

2 Something created everything from nothing.

Or to reduce them even further,

1 Nothing created everything.

2 Something created everything.
Anonymous
 

Rationalism

Postby Dave Oldridge » Mon Oct 09, 2006 4:25 pm

On 9 Oct 2006 at 8:07, Jack wrote:

I posed the following question to the writer of a letter to the
Times about creationist material being sent to schools. Which of
these two statements is the more rational?

1 Nothing created everything from nothing.

2 Something created everything from nothing.

Or to reduce them even further,

1 Nothing created everything.

2 Something created everything.
-
But what is your SCIENTIFIC theory of creation and how can it be
tested, using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD? That's what people are
going to want you to tell them when you want your philosophical
speculations about creation taught in a school SCIENCE class.

--

Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
VA7CZ
Dave Oldridge+
Dave Oldridge
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Rationalism

Postby Ian Lowe » Mon Oct 09, 2006 6:45 pm

Jack wrote: 1 Nothing created everything from nothing.



Welcome to the BCSE Forums, Jack.

Can I ask what you are referring to here? it does not sound like any scientific theory of the origins of makind or the universe that I am familiar with?

It certainly isn't an accurate representation of Evolution, or, for that matter, Big Bang Theory.

Please, explain what you mean.

Ian.
Ian Lowe
 

Re: Rationalism

Postby Anonymous » Mon Oct 09, 2006 7:10 pm

Ian Lowe wrote:
Jack wrote: 1 Nothing created everything from nothing.



Welcome to the BCSE Forums, Jack.

Can I ask what you are referring to here? it does not sound like any scientific theory of the origins of makind or the universe that I am familiar with?

It certainly isn't an accurate representation of Evolution, or, for that matter, Big Bang Theory.

Please, explain what you mean.

Ian.


Dear Ian
The point I am making is that I am trying to extrct from someone a rational statement concerning origins. As I see it there are only two options and they are the two I posted in my first venture onto this forum.
A creationist will say that something (God) created everything from nothing. Therefore an atheist must choose the alternative statement. So which of the two statements is the most rational? Perhaps I have chosen the wrong part of the forum, I thought that my question was more scientific than philosophical.

Jack
Anonymous
 

Rationalism

Postby Anonymous » Mon Oct 09, 2006 7:17 pm

Jack wrote:

The point I am making is that I am trying to extrct from someone a rational statement concerning origins.

How much can we assume you know of abiogenesis?
Anonymous
 

Rationalism

Postby Jaf » Mon Oct 09, 2006 7:57 pm

So which of the two statements is the most rational?

You are assuming that it is a case of 'either/or'. First, remove any
reference to creation, and substitute origin, then you may have a question.
But it still doesn't have to be 'either' one 'or' the other. The
universe isn't black and white.



Jaf
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm
Location: Scunthorpe, N.Lincolnshire

Re: Rationalism

Postby Brian Jordan » Mon Oct 09, 2006 8:14 pm

Jack wrote:

1 Nothing created everything.

2 Something created everything.


1) Like Topsy, I s'pose it just growed

2) What created something? That just growed too, I s'pose

Brian
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Postby Michael » Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:43 pm

Jack

I know I am a bit thick but can you explain all this to someoen who is short of a few neurons please

Michael
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Rationalism

Postby Anonymous » Mon Oct 09, 2006 10:41 pm

[/quote]You are assuming that it is a case of 'either/or'. First, remove any
reference to creation, and substitute origin, then you may have a question.
But it still doesn't have to be 'either' one 'or' the other. The
universe isn't black and white.

If it isn't one or the other then what alternative are you offering? if you want to cover yourself by saying that the world isn't black or white, all you are doing is making a case for a creator much stronger.

OK! Lets so start again although I suspect you know perfectly well what I'm getting at.

There appears to be only 2 scenarios to explain the origin of everything.

1 Nothing became something unaided by nothing. Put another way, first there was nothing, then it exploded. By default this has to be the atheist evolutionist's view.

2 Nothing became something by a first cause. The creationist's view.

One of these statements is more rational than the other. And judging by the responses I have had nobody wants to admit that what they believe is number 1. I don't see that an atheist evolutionist has any choice but to accept number 1. But number 1 is irrational! They only way you can try and get round it is likely to be by semantics.

Jack
Anonymous
 

Re: Rationalism

Postby Anonymous » Mon Oct 09, 2006 10:45 pm

Jack, this group is about science. If you want to discuss creators and have a discussion based on theology, then there are two other groups on this forum which are more appropriate. I will have no hesitating in moving this thread, if this is the case.

If, however, you wish to discuss the current state of abiogenesis (the origin of life. The is different from evolution, the study of how life changes) then I think we are entitled to know your current state of knowledge on the subject and your familiarity with the current journal literature. Are you up for that?
Anonymous
 

Re: Rationalism

Postby Brian Jordan » Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:10 pm

Jack wrote:

There appears to be only 2 scenarios to explain the origin of everything.

1 Nothing became something unaided by nothing. Put another way, first there was nothing, then it exploded. By default this has to be the atheist evolutionist's view.

2 Nothing became something by a first cause. The creationist's view.

But number 1 is irrational! They only way you can try and get round it is likely to be by semantics.

Jack


Jack, this is the time of night when I become impatient, but I'll try to hold my breath. You are not proposing THE two alternatives, you are proposing YOUR two alternatives.

You are further saying that non-creationists cannot explain the origins of the universe (not life, not evolution) to your satisfaction. Therefore your (hardly defined) divine explanation must be correct. Read about a bit, Jack. This fallacy is called "The God of the Gaps": we can't explain it, so it must be that God did it.

Anyway, it's no sort of an answer because is just introduces the question of what created God? Since "he" shows no evidence of ever existing, perhaps you're right for that level of the regression: nothing created nothing.

Sleep well,

Brian
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Postby Nick Cowan » Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:45 pm

There is no mechanism for the abiogenesis of the complex macromolecules of living organisms. Protein synthesis, for example, is irreducibly complex, requiring DNA, a suitable transcription mechanism to form m-RNA, up to 20 different t-RNA molecules stereospecifically designed to select only the L-enantiomers of the optically active amino acids (19 of them!) plus a medium in which to carry this out. But DNA itself requires proteins for its own synthesis!!

As I've said elsewhere, God created chickens with the capacity to lay eggs. (Don't laugh unless you have a better answer.)

As every year 7 Biology student will tell you: only life begets life.

Spontaneous generation was debunked (grin) by Redi in the late 17th century. Why are you trying to foist it on our schoolchildren again?

As you'll see John, we are dealing with people of great faith.

Yours for truth (in science),
Nick Cowan (why was I kicked off BlackShadow - hadn't even STARTED preaching!?)

PS. Read Thursday's Independent and Saturday's Financial Times.
Nick Cowan
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 10:00 pm
Location: Liverpool, UK

Postby Ian Lowe » Tue Oct 10, 2006 12:11 am

Hi Nick, some pointers on the new forums:

Firstly, consider using your name - you don't have to use the Yahoo handle, and many of us are now conversing as proper names. You can change this (if you wish) by visiting your profile, and simply altering your username.

Secondly, scripture is *not* allowed in the Science Only forum - as the name implies - Quoting scripture IS allowed in the freeforall and scripture debate forums, so there's plenty of room for that sort of discussion.

I have deleted your last post regarding bible verses - but only because it is in the wrong place.

Stick to the rules for each area of the forum (they are posted as a "sticky" topic in each area) and we will all be okay.

Ian.
Ian Lowe
 

Postby Brian Jordan » Tue Oct 10, 2006 12:21 am

mcowan32 wrote:There is no mechanism for the abiogenesis of the complex macromolecules of living organisms.

Abiogenesis means just that: formation of *primordial* life, not life as we know it, Jack.
Protein synthesis, for example, is irreducibly complex, requiring DNA, a suitable transcription mechanism to form m-RNA, up to 20 different t-RNA molecules stereospecifically designed to select only the L-enantiomers of the optically active amino acids (19 of them!) plus a medium in which to carry this out. But DNA itself requires proteins for its own synthesis!!

V. sup.

Spontaneous generation was debunked (grin) by Redi in the late 17th century. Why are you trying to foist it on our schoolchildren again?

It was also debunked by Pasteur, with some dodgy experiments. But that's not the point. For all you know, some nasty little molecules are at this very moment (it tends to happen in the wee small hours) plotting a new round of abiogenesis in the sewers. Fortunately, by and large, they're all doomed: there are lifeforms already there waiting to gobble them up. We are, after all, talking "origins", aren't we?


PS. Read Thursday's Independent and Saturday's Financial Times.


Come on Nick, cite chapter and verse - well, at least tell us what to look for.

Brian
Who supposes he should thank your omniscient and omnipotent god for putting his wife into hospital tonight. Must be divine intervention, to give me time to refute your cretinist arguments.
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Rationalism

Postby Dave Oldridge » Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:40 am

On 9 Oct 2006 at 18:45, mcowan32 wrote:

There is no mechanism for the abiogenesis of the complex
macromolecules of living organisms. Protein synthesis, for
example, is irreducibly complex, requiring DNA, a suitable
transcription mechanism to form m-RNA, up to 20 different t-RNA
molecules stereospecifically designed to select only the
L-enantiomers of the optically active amino acids (19 of them!)
plus a medium in which to carry this out. But DNA itself
requires proteins for its own synthesis!!

You never heard of random polymers?

As I've said elsewhere, God created chickens with the capacity
to lay eggs. (Don't laugh unless you have a better answer.)

As every year 7 Biology student will tell you: only life begets
life.

This is hardly a scientific theory, it's a dogma. It's a fairly
GOOD dogma when you're dealing with crackpots who say that flies
are created de novo in rotting meat. It's a LOUSY dogma when
you're dealing wmith crackpots who say that mysterious fairies
have inserted themselves in every aspect of biological chemistry.

Spontaneous generation was debunked (grin) by Redi in the late
17th century. Why are you trying to foist it on our
schoolchildren again?

It wasn't. Certain hypotheses imputed certain observed phenomena
to spontaneous generation. It was debunked for those hypotheses
only. Your bad logic is showing all over the place.

For example, we have shown that astrology is wrong. That is
there is no really testable correlation between the positions of
the planets in the night sky and the personalities of people born
at a given time. But that doesn't mean we cannot use the
position of the moon to help us predict the tides.

As you'll see John, we are dealing with people of great faith.

Apparently much greater than yours, in my case, since I'm
actually a very orthodox Christian believer and you, apparently
hold some distincly heterodox views about the universality of
God's sovereignty....but that's a discussion for the theological
echo. Here we want to see your actual SCIENCTIFIC THEORY.


--

Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
VA7CZ
Dave Oldridge+
Dave Oldridge
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Next

Return to Science Only

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron