You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] logos_ethos 3 points -3 points (+0|-3) ago  (edited ago)

I suppose that I can say that creationism is a self-centered view that nothing mattered before you were born. The universe, which has a large history on its own, was just created recently by someone who has you in mind, so there is no need to consider that you might be the immaterial byproduct of an unfathomably long running process that has practically nothing to do with you. By the way, when you are looking at the stars in the sky, you are viewing the past. Light takes time to travel. The more light that we can collect, the further we can see back in time. You can look at pictures of the universe's distant past, and we do not see a deity's hand at work.

A smooth surface is more ordered than a rough/random surface. The smoothness was created with a long running mechanical process, kind of like evolution produces more ordered things from less ordered things over a very long time frame. The difference with evolution is that the mechanical process deals with (mostly) imperceivable changes during reproduction, not with subtracting imperceivable amounts of material.

Reproduction mechanisms do not have to retain compatibility with other organisms. Sometimes, adaptations preclude the ability to do things that were once, but no longer, necessary.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 



[–] logos_ethos 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

You are trying to connect a basic observation about reproduction to a discussion of morality, in a child like way, I might add. Evolution does not violate cause and effect. Only when you add an unnecessary creator into the picture does cause and effect become violated.

Evolution is why a new flu vaccine is created every season. Do you think that a creator is making a new strain of flu every year? We have the science of evolution to understand life. The medical field uses it because it works. It does not violate laws of physics. The thermodynamics argument that you used applies to a closed system that does not receive additional energy. The ecosystem on Earth receives an abundance of energy from the sun, which is why that argument does not apply.

You talk about immoral actions. Have you read the Old Testament? To quote Richard Dawkins:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

If the God of the Old Testament were a person, any moral nation would give him the death penalty.

I used the erosion of a rock via water as an example of how a long running and imperceptible process is real, even if you cannot perceive changes while watching this process right in front of you. The smoothness part of this metaphor assumes that smoothness was a goal in contrast to the rough shape that rocks normally have. The metaphor was not intended to have more meaning beyond this. Metaphors are limited like that.

I am just describing reproduction as it is commonly understood. Thinks like this picture are far more substantiated than a creator ever will be. If a creator created those things, such a tree would not tie together neatly like that. Also, we have a fossil record to prove this. Evolution is falsifiable. All it takes to falsify evolution is to have the wrong species show up in the wrong part of the timeline. That has not happened, and it would happen frequently if evolution were false.