For creationists...?

Question

Ok, my friend and I were arguing about the existence of a god or no god. We had a very nice argument going while I was explaining to him about some things against creationism... ANYWAYS; he ended his argument with this:

"Where there is creation there must be a creator... where there is design there must be a designer"

Now when I see this, and maybe it's just me, I see it as a bit contradictory. That can also imply that god (who couldn't have come from nothing) had to have been created as well... and the cycle would continue endlessly. And please don't give me the alpha and omega stuff... That doesn't even make sense. So really this isn't only geared towards christianity; it's more geared towards a higher power in general.All religions

So what I'm really asking is if you agree on that quote being worthy of a good argument against evolutionists(if that's even a real word) or if it's a poor argument?and why?

Earl: You said: "Where are the NEaderthal today if we came from Chimps?"

Ok ok first of all, let me clarify so you have some sort of idea of the relationship between men and chimps, from the primatology point of view (study of apes and humans). We were not chimps. We were from a common ancestor of "chimps" if you will. Natural selection played a huge role in this. That is why there are still monkeys and chimps in the world. If that didn't make sense then you should actually look into this field a little more before bashing it.

You also said:
"What, are chimps different, imPOTENT?" I'm not really seeing where you're going with so just look at the previous question.

And the junkyard thing you said: those things don't reproduce, that's not even logical.

BERT: DNA is astonishing, but why are we 98% related to chimps and bonobo apes and 97% related to gorillaz, regarding DNA. Did the higher being do that to confuse us? Remember that evolution takes millions of years, not hundreds.

you should read, "The language of god" by a scientist who HAS faith in Jesus, but through an intelligent design approach. He was the leader the genome project so he really knows about DNA. You'll like it.

ejc: beautiful!

Answer 1

You are right. It's circular reasoning (more precisely begging the question), and it's used many times by many people when they come to the end of ways to justify their position.

By the way, why does there have to be a creator if something was created? New species arise often in biology, and no one created them...just the dumb physical forces of the natural world. Just because everything created by humans was created by a creator doesn't mean everything in nature was.

There are at least a few ideas in cosmology that say either a) the universe always has been, that it never had a beginning, and will never have an end, or b) each new black hole in one universe begins a new universe, and that the Big Bang that scientists think might have happened was actually the result of a black hole in another universe that we can't perceive. (Physics and cosmology aren't my subject area, so I would do a terrible job explaining these hypotheses, but I could probably put together some references if you'd like to investigate them yourself.)

Another Edit, in response to one of your other answerers...The tornado in a junkyard argument (or iPod parts in a box or whatever you want to call it now) is flawed when trying to prove intelligent design for one simple reason: iPods, 747's, etc., don't reproduce. All living organisms do. Using the tornado in a junkyard metaphor for evolution just doesn't work.

Another Edit, in response to another answerer...This universe is perfectly created for making black holes. We just got lucky. Lucky in the sense of a lottery winner. What I mean is that there might be millions of gallaxies in this known universe. If each of them has at least one planet that is the right distance away from a star, has the correct atmosphere and natrual molecules, etc. (just like the Earth), and on each of these planets there are millions upon millions of "attempts" to start life from simple organic molecules by shear natural forces, the odds are highly likely that it absolutely could have started in this fashion. As before, I said it's like the lottery. It seems highly unlikely that someone will win a large jackpot, but we do see it happen pretty often. We were just lucky it happened here.

Answer 2

The problem, of course, is that no human was there to see it all begin.
I suppose that even if one person was there to see it begin, not
everyone would believe him anyway.

I see real problems with the beliefs of those who don't believe that God
created all things. Scientists explain everything clear back to the big
bang. But what about all of the matter that came from it? That is as far
as scientists usually go. It couldn't have come from nowhere. Some may
counter that evidence of God with the arguement that God couldn't have
come from nowhere either. But if someone were to believe in a magical
origin of anything, they might as well believe in God then.

Besides, there appears to be more design and orderliness in everything
that is seen. It is clear what things look like when chaos has it's way.
I believe that these words from Romans 1:20 have a definite ring of
truth to them: "Ever since the creation of the world his invisible
nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived
in the things that have been made."

Answer 3

I see your point I have often wondered this myself. I am also a believer in God. I don't understand it but we are here. I know that for a fact . I'm talking to you and I can't see you. How do I know your really there? Faith tells me you are because I see the evidence that you are there. I have also seen the evidence that God is there, I have felt it, I have experienced it. When I was younger I dabbled in the occult. I have also felt that side of the spirit world. I still have to battle some of the effects from that era. So to answer your question, his argument is great. I know what I believe and one day we will both know who was right.

Answer 4

(I'm not a creationist, but can I still answer?)
You're absolutely correct in that citing God as the original creator only demands further explanation (Who created God? Who created his creator? and so on). When you put this to someone arguing the side of intelligent design, and they laugh it off, saying something like, "we can't know", just take that as a concession. The argument won't advance past that point, because they have nowhere else to go.

Answer 5

God was not created or designed. God is defined as self-existent.

You may not believe that the earth was created or designed so you may not believe that the earth requires a designer or a creator. That is a different argument. God is clearly defined and that statement cannot apply.

Answer 6

if we wish to avoid an infinite regress of causes and effects, we have to say that there is something that has always existed. firstly i'm not sure what's wrong with an infinite regress - it makes us uncomfortable? so what? secondly ok they say 'something' has always existed. they call it god - why? why not call it the universe? i think there are a lot of holes in the argument - maybe it's right, but it's not very convincing either.

Answer 7

The universe is perfectly designed for our existence. Earth is positioned to where the sun doesn't scorch us but gives us life. The moon is positioned perfectly so the tidal waves don't submerg us. (The moon's gravity makes the tides.) The earth's axis is tilted perfectly for for proper seasons and harvest. Now with all this perfectly positioned for us to live in this universe, do you really think that chance or "something from nothing" created this? God was here before man, and that is why it is so hard to acknowledge him.

Answer 8

I think it's a perfectly good argument. I do agree with your friend. When you see a building you have no doubt that there was a builder...Same for creation. Our world is so beautifully created and yet so many want to deny that there was a creator. There is more of a chance that a tornado could go through a junk yard and create a 747 than that the world came into existence by chance. There is enough information in one strand of DNA to blow your mind and you think that no one put that information there? It's much harder for me not to believe there is a creator than to believe in one.Read Tornado In A Junk Yard by James Perloff for a different perspective.

Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould put it this way"Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless." In other words, Throughout the geologic layers, which supposedly formed over eons - the various kinds of fossils remain essentially unchanged in appearance.They show no evolution over long ages. Paleontologists call this "stasis."
Wouldn't a fossil record, showing all animals complete when first seen, is what we'd expect if God created them whole, just as the Bible says?
Austin H. Clark, the eminent zoologist of the Smithsonian Institution, was no creationist but he declared:
"No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life upon the earth we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediates between the major groups of phyla.
This can only mean one thing. There can only be one interpertation of thisentire lack of any intermediates between the major groups of animals - as for instance betweenbackboned animals or vertebrates , the echinoderms, the mollusks and the arthropods
If we are willing to accept the facts we must believe that there never were such intermediates, or in other words that these major groups have from the very first, borne the same relation to each other that they have today."
.British science writer Frances Hitchens wrote" On the face of it, then, the prime function of the genetic system would seem to be to resist change ; to to perpetuate the species in a minimally adapted form in response to altered conditions, and if at all possibe to get things back to normal. The role of natural selection is usually a negative one : to destroy the few mutant individuals that threaten the stability of the soecies.
Why aren't fish today, growing little arms and legs, trying to adapt to land? Why aren't reptiles today developing feathers?Shouldn't evolution be ongoing?
Evolution Is not visible in the past, via the fossil record. It is not visible in the present, whether we consider an organism as a whole, or on the microscopic planes of biochemistry and molecular biology,where, as we have seen, the theory faces numerous difficulties. In short, evolution is just not visible. Science is supposed to be based on observation.
L. Harrison Matthews,long director of the London Zoological society noted in 1971:"Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parrallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true, but neither up to the present, has been capable of proof.
Norman MacBeth wrote in American Biology Teacher:
"Darwinism has failed in practice. The whole aim and purpose in Darwinism is to show how modern forms descended from ancient forms, that is to construct reliable phylogenies(genealogies or family trees). In this it has utterly failed...Darwinism is not science."
Swedish biologist Soren Lovtrup declared in his book Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth:
I suppose nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology;for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar" Darwinism" vocabulary -- "adaptation","selection pressure","natural selection", etc.--thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events.They do not, and the sooner this is discovered, the sooner we will be able to make real progress in the understanding of evolution.
As natural selection's significance crumbles, the possibility of God, creation and design is again making a wedge in scientific circles. In a 1998 cover story entitled"Science Finds God" Newsweek noted:
"The achievments of modern science seem to contradict religion and undermine faith. But for a growing # of scientists, the same discoveries offer support for spirituality and hints of the very nature of God...According to a study released last year, 40% of American scientists believe in a personal God---not only an ineffable power and presence in the world, but a diety to whom they can pray."
Author David Raphael Klein may have said it best:
"Anyone who can contemplate the eye of a housefly, the mechanics of human finger movement, the camoflage of a moth, or the building of every kind of matter from variations in arrangement of proton and electron, and then maintain that all this design happened without a designer, happened by sheer, blind accident-- such a personbelieves in a miracle far more astonishing than any in the Bible."

Answer 9

the object provides a referenced, evidenced thesis. you have provided an attraction to Ridicule (i.e. a logical fallacy). Now all you will possibly desire to do is modern-day a rational rebuttal - so the considerate human beings can take part in the controversy. (yet I won't carry my breath).

Answer 10

I suggest getting your friend a copy of Hume's 'Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion'.