Are there any actual creationists or ID proponents here?

The universe is governed by complex laws of physic. How did such defined laws come into existence?

We do not know when time came from, neither why it necessarily started 13.8 billion years ago. The analogy I'm trying to send here isn't "Why did X happen?", rather it is "What decided that X could happen?".

Something or someone must have decided that 1+1=2, it is an absolute fact of the universe. I'm just saying how can you believe such infinitely complex and well defined laws of the universe could have been created by chance without any greater intelligence behind them. Just to back one thing up, I also believe in evolution, I'm not a religious nutjob, but someone that believes an intelligent creator designed the universe.

Because of poe's law it is impossible* to tell if we have trolls or actual creationists.

*the one way to tell would be for some one to post a dated 'diploma' from on of those 'creationist' universities.

You can go to a creationist university and not be creationist. It's called lying. Some dude claimed a month ago to get kicked out of a creationist university for training a machine learning classifier to recognize boobs.

>kicked out of a creationist university for training a machine learning classifier to recognize boobs.
I remember that one. But yeah, you could probably even buy a diploma like Hovind did, what's the point?

>How did such defined laws come into existence?
How did God come into existence?

The thing is, I can say that God has always been there, but time hasn't always been there. Time as we know it started 13.8 years ago, when the Universe suddenly started expanding. Time did not exist before the Big Bang.

If God truly conceived and designed the fabric of spacetime as we know it, then he is both above the concept of space and time, proving that he has no shape and isn't subjugated to the concept of time. The Universe has a clear design and clear laws, if it was total chaos, maybe like the state of the Universe before the Recombination Era, I might have agreed with you, but that's not the case.

13.8 billion years ago*
Sorry.

God having "always been there" is infinitely more nonsensical than the universe as we currently know it starting 13.8 billion years ago, we are still trying to understand this

youtube.com/watch?v=3MRHcYtZjFY

heres a fun Veeky Forums video that covers a whole range of fun stuff, along with briefly going over why creationism and religion isn't logical. i recommend everyone watches it, if not just for the fact that its an interesting video

>God having "always been there" is infinitely more nonsensical

Not really, the creator is always above his creation. The fabric of spacetime is not random and follows the laws of physics, being curbed according to the quantity of matter. Time as we know it is an aspect of spacetime, which just like me, just like the Earth, just like the Sun, just like everything, is part of the Universe. So tell me, if God can be immaterial, why can't he defy the concept of time as well? If God is immaterial, then he also is timeless.

>Not really, the creator is always above his creation.
That's a fucking useless copout. If you suppose something timeless outside of the universe, there's no reason God is more sensible than The Bulk. Unfalsifiable concepts are trash, at least the bulk could theoretically have math to back it.

This guy
Has it right.

Besides, you'd still need to account for god's creator. You say he created the universe from his intelligence - so who taught him? And if he was created, then he is not omnipotent, so why call him god? And who created his creators? It's a circular, nonsensical argument that leads to absurdity and answers nothing - it just poses more questions. It's not logical in the least.

Why the fuck is it useless? Why are Atheists totally not bothered by the idea that God is immaterial but get salty when we say God is also timeless as well? Always the same "Hurr but what came before God?", and then "What came before that?"

Time and space are two different sides of the same coin. If you do not adhere to one, you do not adhere to the other. If God doesn't exist within the Universe, then he isn't bound to the concept of time or "what came before?". Anyway, you're right that the concept of God is unfalsifiable, you can't prove something that is above existence as we know it (the current dimensions of the universe), it's just that it is very likely that He or It exists considering how the Universe is complexly structured.

"God's creator"

You've got the wrong idea pal. The creator of God creating God just so that he can create us makes no sense. I've said it earlier and I said it now, God is beyond your concept of time. He is truly timeless. Time, just like shape, are two concepts he created. He isn't bound to either. Read earlier.

You are an idiot who knows nothing about science. Spacetime is a concept of the universe, and so anything outside the universe is inherently timeless unless it includes its own structure of time. This is not the complaint. The complaint is that it's not any better an explanation than anything else outside the universe. It is MORE unfalsifiable than a concept like the bulk. It is bullshit handwaving and pretending to be profound.

You have solved NOTHING, you have only lied to yourself that your hand-waving explanation is intuitive. Yet time and time again, science shows us that what we found intuitive is completely fucking baseless. Geocentrism was intuitive. Absolute position and time was intuitive. They didn't work out.

never in the history of anything ever observed by humanity has suggested in the slightest that something 'timeless/beyond concept of time and space' exists. You might say "well thats the POINT that its impossible to observe since its timeless" but then whats the fucking point of this discussion. I might as well believe in a 7 tentacled walrus that sleeps on top of mount rushmore, except that the walrus is invisible and cannot be physically interacted with by anything, or can it influence anything else.

yeah, I'm actually a mormon
my general belief about our existence is that it's so unfathomably complex that we could never even begin to understand it in our current state, so basically your choice to believe in God or not reflects only your perspective of life and not your actual knowledge or intelligence
I do admit that abiogenesis and macroevolution could've happened, but they're so unlikely to have worked even on an extremely rare habitable planet like Earth that to justly believe in them you have to also believe in the multiverse

>I do admit that abiogenesis and macroevolution could've happened, but they're so unlikely to have worked even on an extremely rare habitable planet like Earth that to justly believe in them you have to also believe in the multiverse
>i only know a little bit of pop sci: the post

Please don't get so upset. I only talked about God being timeless because you're the one that asked what came before God, and thus I tried to show you that considering God exists outside the current Universe, he isn't bound to time or "Before Him".

It's not bullshit, but I will admit it is intuitive. You seem to think concepts like the Multiverse are bullshit but you're wrong because mathematics exists and do back up these concepts little by little. Even string theory which is hated a lot around here has some mathematical basis. Yet we haven't observed these strings have we?

But all in all, I will not force my ideals on you because mathematics will probably either prove me as right or you. Not everything intuitive is wrong, intuition is the first step out of trying to make sense of something. The idea that God exists is just my conclusion as to what seems to be the most probable.

The complexity of the universe is known but a good portion of people think it is a product of absolute luck. Fine, that seems absolutely retarded to me, but that's probably what seems most probable to you.

The only bonus you have over me is that you base your beliefs only on empirical evidence and observation, but if you know anything about science, you'd know that there is way more to the universe than what can be observed and what has been observed, both on a macro and micro scale. Dark matter a few decades ago and quantum physics is proof of that.

See last paragraph. And +1 for originality, was sure you'd bring up Santa but a 7 tentacled walrus is better.

fuck Veeky Forums

Should have said "only on empirical evidence and what has been observed", I feel like it's giving me the idea that I'm against science established by observation.

>I couldn't think of a rebuttal so here's a meme instead: the post

>I only talked about God being timeless because you're the one that asked what came before God,
I'm , so no I didn't.

>You seem to think concepts like the Multiverse are bullshit but you're wrong because mathematics exists and do back up these concepts little by little.
That is some beautifully non sequitir logic right there. "Math exists and the concepts have interest from mathematicians therefore it is real."

>mathematics will probably either prove me as right or you
Mathematics will never be able to prove a God, it is as unfalsifiable as it gets.

>a good portion of people think it is a product of absolute luck.
I think the massive number of other possibilities for the laws of the universe will turn out to be less viable than currently thought.

>you'd know that there is way more to the universe than what can be observed and what has been observed, both on a macro and micro scale. Dark matter a few decades ago and quantum physics is proof of that.
Replacing simpler models that make many assumptions about the nature of spacetime with more general models that make fewer is not very comparable to throwing your hands in the air and declaring a supernatural being is responsible for the mess.

If God is timeless, would that not also mean that he is unchanging?
If God never changes, how can he possibly have created anything? His state would be constant. Being outside of time almost seems like a restraint.

Stupid ass motherfuck
>extremely rare habitat like earth
You mean one with water that all life is composed of

>declaring probability of abiogenesis and macroevolution occurring as if any "estimates" mean shit
>"to justly believe in them you have to also believe in the multiverse"
What is there to rebut? It's pure uneducated rhetoric.

Be glad you guys ain't in Soviet Russia. Count your blessing where you can find em.

I didn't cite any estimates, I don't consider them viable either, I assumed that it was reasonable to say that they're improbable, are you arguing that either of those things are probable?

>I don't consider them viable either, I assumed that it was reasonable to say that they're improbable
Non sequitir.

>are you arguing that either of those things are probable?
No fucking shit, this is Veeky Forums not /x/. Regardless of "calculations" by idiots that make massive assumptions, there is a huge amount of evidence suggesting that both DID happen no matter what you feel about it. And the evidence is not definitive! But it's a lot more evidence than exists for any alternative. And that is how science works.

>I'm , so no I didn't.
Sorry about that.

>That is some beautifully non sequitir logic right there. "Math exists and the concepts have interest from mathematicians therefore it is real."

Not necessarily real, but should be considered possibly real until proven otherwise. What's the harm in that?

>Mathematics will never be able to prove a God, it is as unfalsifiable as it gets.

Mathematics won't just transform into English and say "Hurr a god created the universe". The idea here is that mathematics can prove that something has come before the Universe.

>I think the massive number of other possibilities for the laws of the universe will turn out to be less viable than currently thought.

Or it can grow, we can't know. I mentioned dark matter, now imagine telling people 80 years ago that baryonic matter only composes 5% of matter and energy in the Universe. You will be laughed at and called retarded. But look today, we have no fucking idea what composes 95% of the observable universe. I feel like there is still much much more to learn than what we see, especially with things that can't be seen (Energy that doesn't interact with photons)

>Replacing simpler models that make many assumptions about the nature of spacetime with more general models that make fewer is not very comparable to throwing your hands in the air and declaring a supernatural being is responsible for the mess.

That's not the case. I'm not anti-science, on the contrary, I feel like science will be the only way to get closer to God. Sure, I may think God is responsible for this mess, but that won't stop me from learning more about the mess. You have the idea that I'm a religious nutjob who answers all questions about the universe with "Bcuz gawdd", not true. God has established well-defined physical laws that govern the universe, and I believe in those laws. Ask me how gravity works, I won't just respond with "god's magic", really.

For real. Some christian universities are messed up. There's a college in Florida called Pensacola where guys and girls can't even walk on the same side of the street as one another. My friend that went there got fined because they found out he was around a girl without permission, even though he was off campus.

>mathematics can prove X about the world

you fundamentally misunderstand both what science is and what math is

Well to us we define time as a linear progression of events, but on a physical level, time really is just the rate of entropy. I can't answer your question, you probably think being above time means actually being below it, meaning no rate of change. My idea of being "above time" was that you could do anything you want without being subjugated to entropy, but thanks for bringing that up, opened up a new perspective.

Sorry, semantics, not prove, explains for science. But math does prove.

Did I mention they try to say that comparing forks and compaing skulls are the same thing. Basically saying that checking for similarities in morphology is useless bullshit.

math doesn't prove anything about the world

I'm neo-Lamarckian when it comes to certain epigenetics topics, and I'm open to intelligent design, especially very indirect forms of intelligent design.

But mostly it's just that neo-Darwinian thought is incredibly limited.

>It's beyond me how some people believe there is no God.

I do.

>How can you believe that the universe was born randomly at a specific time in existence? Why did time start 13.8 billion years ago and not 15 billion years ago?

I do not believe that. It might have had a beginning. It might stretch without limit into the past (infinitely far). My position is "I don't know, and you don't know either".

>non sequitir
no, idiot. The two statements were separate, I was saying that I agree that mathematical estimates of their probability are probably pointless, and then after that I was justifying why I said that they're unlikely without further argument

>there is a huge amount of evidence suggesting that both DID happen no matter what you feel about it
since you seem to like the logical fallacies game, this is both ad hominem and a straw man. Up to this point I still haven't referred to any of the creationist theories or ideas you're attacking or mingled my personal beliefs with reason.

As you said, the fact that positive evidence exists to justify a theory does not prove it, and I'd add that the amount of evidence supporting one theory or another does not directly correspond to its probability. I know that there is plenty of evidence to support evolution and none to support creation. The argument exists not in the scale of our knowledge regarding one over the other but the logic of how likely it was to happen.
Abiogenesis is maybe possible and astronomically improbable, I'm not even going to debate about this one, you're an idiot if you disagree.
Macroevolution is completely possible but also improbable because not only does is assume that all life on earth could be and was formed by systematic mutation and natural selection, but goes against the fundamental principle of entropy and requires it to have been dispelled by some natural driving force or sheer luck.
Furthermore, this all happened on a planet with lots of elements like Carbon, Nitrogen, Hydrogen, Oxygen, etc that as far as we know aren't very common, that just happened to be circling a favorable star at a favorable distance rotating at a favorable velocity.
Barring the existence of the multiverse, if there's a finite amount of matter in this universe then it would be fair to say that the opportunities for this trial to take place would be rather limited, don't you think?

Kek, called it

>Macroevolution is completely possible but also improbable because not only does is assume that all life on earth could be and was formed by systematic mutation and natural selection, but goes against the fundamental principle of entropy and requires it to have been dispelled by some natural driving force or sheer luck.

You really need to read a book on evolution. You don't know anything about it. For laypersons such as yourself, I suggest "The Greatest Show On Earth" by Richard Dawkins and "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry Coyne. Once you have read those books, then you may come back here and participate.

Not me. I would say that it is possible, but without any evidence whatsoever, I can't support it.

I'll read the latter but I'm not going to waste my time with that fag Dawkins, I don't know how anyone can even take him seriously.

Also, if there's some basic principle I'm ignorant of I'd love to know but I'm getting the feeling you're also just making a fleeting appeal-to-character to invalidate what I said.
What will these books educate me on so that my stance is compromised?

Your perception of science must be skewed

You're understanding is bad on a lot of things.

For starters, evolution does not violate the laws of entropy, because entropy is still globally increasing. All the time we can use machines to decrease entropy in some particular defined and bounded open system, at the cost of a greater increase in entropy someplace else. That's life.

And there's this thing called the sun which gives massive, massive amounts of energy to life on Earth, which allows for creatures to sustain their complexity without running afoul of the laws of entropy. (Plus the heat sources of undersea volcanic vents.)

Also, Dawkins is still a really competent and highly influential biologist. His book "The Selfish Gene" is seminal. He's also an excellent science writer for the public. His book "The Greatest Show On Earth" is very accessible and informative. I really do suggest it.

>I'm not going to waste my time with that fag Dawkins
Protip: every human bean is an idiot in at least one regard. That does not invalidate their other work. Dawkins was fundamental to evolution, and if you want to stop sounding like an idiot with regards to evolution, you should consider first checking out the source.

The example of creating robots demonstrates how entropy can be manually decreased in one system, but gives no logical support to the force of nature acting on its own with no intelligent influence. The sun provides energy necessary for a system to function but does not in and of itself provide functionality, also the argument is not over whether complexity can be sustained, but how it could be increased. What natural force will decrease entropy in any single open system?

fine, I'll read at least a chapter but I won't continue if it's like his other stuff

>What natural force will decrease entropy in any single open system?
Gravity.

What "other stuff" have you read? There will be occasional jabs at Christians and creationists, but by far the majority content is about evolution, what is evolution, and the evidence for evolution.

(Working on a reply to your other post.)

This has confused me for a while.
What does a gravitational system of 50-particles look like at maximum entropy?

Specifically, it is not "The God Delusion", which was at best mediocre by any standard.

"The Greatest Show On Earth" is almost entirely: What is evolution, and what evidence do we have for the truth of evolution.

Whenever you have 1- inheritance of something like DNA with high accuracy but occasional random errors (letter changes, additions, and subtractions), and 2- differential survival and reproduction rates based (directly or indirectly) on the content of that something (i.e. DNA), then you will have increase in information. This is easily demonstrated with computer simulations.

Of course, it does depend on a formal definition of "information", which is simply the reverse side of the coin known as "entropy". The physics concepts of "information" and "entropy" are highly related.

Let's take a real world example. There is a fish that has an antifreeze protein. From genetic analysis and other forms of analysis, we know how this happened. In one generation, there was a DNA duplication event that caused the DAN sequence for one gene to be duplicated. Then, in a future generation, there was another mutation that truncated most of the gene into a very short sequence, and this sequence caused the creation of a particular protein that had a very small, but noticable, impact as an antifreeze. Then, over time, future mutations built on this DNA sequence, and produced a better antifreeze gene. Voila. This should be a simple and clear example of information increase. We went from a genome, to a genome with an additional active gene (the antifreeze gene). By any sensible and coherent definition of entropy theory and information theory, this is a clear-cut case of information increase.

Also, I'm not quite sure how legit or informative this is, but here's another example which might be really useful.
io9.gizmodo.com/watch-as-these-adorable-robots-evolve-the-ability-to-wa-480989422

alright if it's at least better than The God Delusion I'll give it a fair chance. I really don't mind moderate jabs, what really bothers me is when atheists talk with that condescending attitude like anyone with a three digit IQ should be automatically above creationism

that's actually a good point, but can entropy even apply to gravity?

Here as in on the forums or on the Earth?

>I really don't mind moderate jabs, what really bothers me is when atheists talk with that condescending attitude like anyone with a three digit IQ should be automatically above creationism

I do happen to believe that in a certain sense, but I don't see the point about being super smug about it in most situations. I do believe that evolution is true, creationism of all sorts is false, and the evidence to support these claims is overwhelming. However, being snide about it is generally not helpful to make other people change their mind, and to educate themselves, and be better, more informed human beings.

But yeah, "The Greatest Show On Earth" is very little religion bashing. It contains very little on philosophy and religion overall.

evolution is God's plan.

those examples are both really interesting. I'll read more on explanations of information and entropy systems in macroevolution.
good debate, I've gotta go to sleep now

Scientists do need God for when they graft a kittens head onto a chicken, to cry out "MY GOD WHAT HAVE I DONE!"

and this is why debating ID/YEC is a complete waste of time.

I'm Catholic so I believe in evolution, YE creationism is a Protestant thing.

Isn't a rule of Veeky Forums that you can't have stupid 'science vs religion' type arguement threads?

Have you been here long? This is one of the least moderated boards on the site.

I'm pretty sure we're a containment board.

>Time as we know it started 13.8 years ago
How do so many people not know what the Big Bang is? It's not the beginning of time, fucko. Is this a meme because you creationist tards need it to be true to justify your retardation?