why does the every creation needs a creator argument keep getting cited like it's a scientific theory?

Question

i can certainly think of a few creations that occur without the assistance of a creator. take mud for example. water from a storm falls onto dirt on the ground. and voila!!! we've got the creation of mud. simple, no creator. now you're probably saying, "but mud isn't a complex creation." well, then my question to you is, how would you define something as being complex? is it something with a complex design? well, then what about snowflakes?

kjv, notice how my question asked nothing about evolution...

red, you're assuming too much... all that newton's first law says is an objection in motion tends to stay in motion. it never makes the assumption that something had to force it into motion.

Answer 1

Yes. I do not create a mess of dropped popcorn on the floor - I simply do not pay enough attention when I am eating it and it forms incidentally.

The universe is TOO complex to have been created - an intelligently designed universe would be much simpler, without the redundancy and dead-ends that we can easily observe in it.

The idea that god would create an appendix which does nothing is completely absurd - no creator would deliberately do something so pointless and wasteful with the potential to destroy the creation when it fails. You just don't build deliberate flaws into things. The appendix is in the process of evolving to an organ that has a function, or it is in the process of being obsoleted out as it no longer has a function.

Answer 2

I have never seen anyone use that argument as a Scientific theory and any who does is seriously deluded.

That particular argument is a philosophically or logic argument and not a Scientific one. And mud actually does fit into the argument because they would say well how did the dirt get there?

So my answer to your question? I don't know. I have no idea why someone would cite that argument as Scientific evidence.

Answer 3

If a God were intimately involved in the creation of all things, simple and complex, my thought is... what a tedious job!

I mean, take the snowflake you mention. Does Creationism imply that God is responsible for the creation of every single snowflake?

Only an entity the caliber of a God could take such boredom. I'd probably throw myself down a black hole after having to create and destroy the first hundred gazillion snowflakes.

Answer 4

OK... So if something is in motion, it must have had something to set it in motion. That is a fact of physics. An immutable law.

We can trace the universe back to a single point. What set that event in motion? It HAD to have a trigger. Nothing moves unless energy is expended to make it move. NOTHING!

You will most likely say you don't know but you DO claim to know it wasn't God. How can you be so sure? Isn't it the height of arrogance to claim you know anything is certain?

When you can explain how the universe was set in motion as a provable fact, then you can claim there is no God. Until then you are just whistling past the graveyard.

You really don't know.

Answer 5

Nope! not greater Flying Spaghetti Monster, I coated him in sauce and cheese and devoured him up! He replaced into fairly tasty, in actuality, i might pass so a tactics as to assert that he replaced into DIVINE! Throw me yet another theory, perhaps something concerning the Garlic Toast Beast....i'm no longer fairly finished yet.

Answer 6

Mud and snowflakes are a by-product, they happen as a direct result of something else. They just didn't miraculously come into existence. They also are not living things.

I think its only natural to say that if there is a god, the opposition will say someone or something else must have created it.

I have heard Christians, and believers in general, ask atheists how they can believe something came from nothing since they don't believe in god. Therefor they are implying that god created everything and that everything must have a creator. If this is true then god must also have a creator and believers also believe that something came from nothing, since usually they say god wasn't created.

Answer 7

Actually, the argument is more often 'I don't understand how x got here, so I'll insist that God put it there'.

Quantum field theory has demolished the idea that every event needs a specific trigger. Strange how creationists are so dogmatic about Newtonian physics that they attempt to use it against quantum physics.

CD

Answer 8

Your argument is flawed. Water that turns to vapor is still water. Water that freezes solid is still water. Dirt and water is still dirt and water when mixed. It is hardly a new creation.

Where though did the dirt come from, and where did the water come from?

Matter just "happened" at what science refers to as the "big bang"? That's scientific??? Something came from nothing, according to science. Oooh. I am indeed impressed with science and the scientific methodology.

Then there is the issue of life coming into existence. Again, "poof" and it happened.

Yea, right.

.

Answer 9

Its funny because the that idea kills the idea of god because he too would need a creator since he is also complex but they try to stop the logic when they get the answer they wanted to begin with but that is false logic.

Answer 10

Well creation needs a creator is still a theory. You cant deny that. Sure it doesnt fit with most of the basic beliefs of science such as parsimony, but its still a possibility.