Creationism and Darwin

[SpidermanTuba]

simple logic would tell you that it has always been there......or since it is constant.....were is the matter comming from that allows the earths popolation to increase at a greater rate than it is dying?

\

Science often is not simple. Ideas which seem like common sense are often revealed to be wrong.

 

[Freedom Lover]

Where did the energy come from?

Are you really discounting a base law of science concerning matter? Why you should be awarded a Nobel for Science for your discovery!

Also, you are ignoring another base law of science that states that order can not come from chaos without some intervening force. Perhaps two Nobels would be in order for you.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Where did the energy come from?

That is a topic of current investigation. Possibilities for the BIg Bang boundary condition involved quantum vacuum fluctuations and quantum tunneling, among others No one knows for sure.

Are you really discounting a base law of science concerning matter?

No. The conservation of mass/energy applies within the space-time boundary of the entire UNiverse. I said nothing to contradict that.

Also, you are ignoring another base law of science that states that order can not come from chaos without some intervening force.

You are confusing "source of energy" with "force". Since you obviously don't know the difference between energy and force, I'd suggest you go read up on a little basic physics before you pretend to know anything about it.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system. The Solar System itself approximates a closed system - and in fact, the net entropy of the Solar System is increasing with time.

 

[dilloduck]

The universe is not endless and exists in infinite space-time? Ummm.... yeah .....sure.

We don't know where the universe begins nor ends, nor where the center of it is; yet, science can arbitrarily determine that it is expanding and exists in infinte space-time. That's about as good a theory as the "from nothing came something" (Big Bang) theory.

Geez ....and y'all call Christians gullible ...... :rotflmao:

Agreed--science is mans' atttempt to understand and control his envionment WITHOUT having to reference a power greater than himself. Man does not like the idea of not being in control .

 

[Freedom Lover]

Say anything that you like. The indisputable fact that remains is you, nor any "learned" scientist can explain where, or how, the very first, single atom originated, or for that matter, any "energy" that may have brought the components of that atom together, or where the components of that atom came from to be able to come together in the first place. No matter what base you use you can not prove how that single atom originated.

Go ahead and go back as far as you want to go and as minute as you want to be and sooner or later logic dictates that somewhere at the very, very beginning that minutae, even if it is no more than a particle of dust, had to be created in order to set everything else in motion. Simply put, to use a math example, zero times any number you want to choose still comes out zero. To change that the zero has to become some other number, but it can not do so on its own. It must be changed by some outside being that can exert influence over it to turn it into something that is useful. I have to agree with the earlier post that says something cannot come out of nothing. If it could wouldn't we still be witnessing it again at least from time to time throughout the history of the world?

I would agree that over time there have been things that have evolved in order to improve. To say, however, that everything that is, or has ever been came about as the result of some energy form that no one can explain where it came from, defies all logic and reasoning. I would submit that creationism and a limited evolution theory can exist together. For one explains how things got started, from the animals, sea creatures, plants, insects and man, and the other can explain how we got to where we are, physically speaking.

 

[Zhukov]

Go ahead and go back as far as you want to go and as minute as you want to be and sooner or later logic dictates that somewhere at the very, very beginning

What if I want to go back infinity? What if there was no beginning?

 

[Zhukov]

Incidentally, I've seen specials on more recent theories of quantum mechanics that suggest that perhaps on quantum scales the law of conservation of energy and mass is constantly being violated. I can't find a link for anyone to read, but the gist of it was that the fabric of the universe is permeable and quantum particles and energy are constantly being exchanged between adjacent universes, but in a manner that maintains an overall balance between those universes.

 

[Freedom Lover]

If there were no beginning there would be no now!

 

[Zhukov]

If there were no beginning there would be no now!

Says who?

 

[Hobbit]

If there were no beginning there would be no now!

Look at a mobius strip. Hell, look at a circle. There is no beginning, nor is there an end. However, each individual point upon the loop still exists.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Say anything that you like. The indisputable fact that remains is you, nor any "learned" scientist can explain where, or how, the very first, single atom originated,

Yes we can. The first atom was created when a proton captured an electron in one of its orbitals.

or for that matter, any "energy" that may have brought the components of that atom together,

It doesn't take energy to create a hydrogen atom with a proton and an electron. In fact, energy is released in the process.

or where the components of that atom came from to be able to come together in the first place.

The proton came from quarks. The electron came from energy being converted into matter.

No matter what base you use you can not prove how that single atom originated.

Atoms are created all the time in the lab.

Go ahead and go back as far as you want to go and as minute as you want to be and sooner or later logic dictates that somewhere at the very, very beginning that minutae, even if it is no more than a particle of dust, had to be created in order to set everything else in motion.

Well, OK. Except it wasn't a dust particle. It was all the matter/energy of the universe wrapped up into a singularity. I'm not quite sure what your point is. Are you simply trying to point out that science can't explain everything? That's not really much of a point.

Simply put, to use a math example, zero times any number you want to choose still comes out zero. To change that the zero has to become some other number, but it can not do so on its own. It must be changed by some outside being that can exert influence over it to turn it into something that is useful.

An "outside being" changing zero into some quantity? OK, you're losing me here. Zero is always zero.

I have to agree with the earlier post that says something cannot come out of nothing. If it could wouldn't we still be witnessing it again at least from time to time throughout the history of the world?

That is a baseless assumption. Matter/energy conservation is known to hold true within the space-time boundary of the universe, there is no evidence to the contrary.

I would agree that over time there have been things that have evolved in order to improve. To say, however, that everything that is, or has ever been came about as the result of some energy form that no one can explain where it came from, defies all logic and reasoning.

Does it defy logic and reasoning to suggest that the function of the human brain is not presently possible to explain? It is not unreasonable to admit that something is unknown.

I would submit that creationism and a limited evolution theory can exist together. For one explains how things got started, from the animals, sea creatures, plants, insects and man, and the other can explain how we got to where we are, physically speaking.

I would submit that belief in God and evolution are not mutually exclusive from the standpoint of someone's personal belief system, but that God does not belong in a science classroom because science is limited only to explaining natural phenomena with natural explanations.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

If there were no beginning there would be no now!

There was a beginning, the Big Bang. But lack of a beginning does not imply a lack of now. The real number set has no beginning, either, yet it exists.

 

[LOki]

It is always amusing to see the look on the faces of those "first causers" when they assert that "somebody" must have created the universe, and then are asked, "Ok then, if all beginnings must be created, who created your first causer?"

 

[Freedom Lover]

I always enjoy seeing people react who do not realize that God has said " I AM". I am the beginning and the end. Besides, how do you respond when asked if all things came from some peice of cosmic dust or cloud of cosmic gas where did that come from? Since science says that matter can not be created or destroyed that particle, or gas cloud, could not have just happened. For another scientific law says that order can not be made out of chaos without outside intervention. You can not just say that some scientific laws are infallible then dismiss others to fit your view of how the order we know happened to come about.

When I was in school the two scientific laws I have indicated above were taught as being among the basic building blocks of science. If you accept basic scientific law, in whole and not just in part, which you must or your whole theory falls apart, then there can be only one explanation and that is all that we see and all that is around us had to be created since nothing can not just appear out of nothing.

Think about it.

 

[bobn]

I always enjoy seeing people react who do not realize that God has said " I AM". I am the beginning and the end. Besides, how do you respond when asked if all things came from some peice of cosmic dust or cloud of cosmic gas where did that come from? Since science says that matter can not be created or destroyed that particle, or gas cloud, could not have just happened. For another scientific law says that order can not be made out of chaos without outside intervention. You can not just say that some scientific laws are infallible then dismiss others to fit your view of how the order we know happened to come about.

Actually when we are talking about the early moments of the universe then natural laws break down and do not apply. So it is possible to have an uncaused effect at the beginning of the universe. Anything is possible in fact. We don't know and all we can do is make speculative ideas.

One idea that violates natural laws is the idea that a supernatural being created the universe. Another one is that the universe created itself, or that the universe was created by a mother universe. Or that the universe simply is without cause. Like I said, all things are possible in the early universe as it is a great unknown. Causality itself neednt apply. There is no guarantee that even logic must apply.

 

[dilloduck]

Actually when we are talking about the early moments of the universe then natural laws break down and do not apply. So it is possible to have an uncaused effect at the beginning of the universe. Anything is possible in fact. We don't know and all we can do is make speculative ideas.

One idea that violates natural laws is the idea that a supernatural being created the universe. Another one is that the universe created itself, or that the universe was created by a mother universe. Or that the universe simply is without cause. Like I said, all things are possible in the early universe as it is a great unknown. Causality itself neednt apply. There is no guarantee that even logic must apply.

What if the supernatural being IS the universe?

 

[Said1]

What if the supernatural being IS the universe?

And we're living in it's arm pit. Would make a lot of sense.

 

[LOki]

I always enjoy seeing people react who do not realize that God has said " I AM". I am the beginning and the end.

Are they surprised?

Besides, how do you respond when asked if all things came from some peice of cosmic dust or cloud of cosmic gas where did that come from?

I say, "the evidience, thus far, appears to point at a rapidly expanding singularity."

Since science says that matter can not be created or destroyed that particle, or gas cloud, could not have just happened.

Science, (as if there is one of your invisible elves, with a golden frisbee floating over his head, running around in a lab coat making such pronouncements--heh!) does not say this.

Matter is equivalent to energy. Reference E=mc^2. That matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, means something more like matter cannot be destroyed without yeilding more energy, and energy cannot be destroyed without yielding more matter--IOW, the amount of matter/energy in the universe is constant.

For another scientific law says that order can not be made out of chaos without outside intervention.

Science (HAHAHA!) does not say this either.

You can not just say that some scientific laws are infallible then dismiss others to fit your view of how the order we know happened to come about.

Provide an example. Demonstrate.

Before you provide this example, however, make sure you understand the scientific laws you are citing, and be sure you understand what scientific law actually means, and finally, make sure you don't get your examples from some fairy tale peddler.

When I was in school the two scientific laws I have indicated above were taught as being among the basic building blocks of science.

No you weren't. Most certainly not if your teacher was teaching the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

If you accept basic scientific law, in whole and not just in part, which you must or your whole theory falls apart,...

Why thank you for the gift of my very own theory! How thoughtful of you to provide me with my theory! Please tell though, what is my theory?

...then there can be only one explanation and that is all that we see and all that is around us had to be created since nothing can not just appear out of nothing.

ONLY one explaination?!?!?!?!?!?

Fine. I'll just accept your assertion "...since [something] (I assume you misspoke, as nothing need not appear from nothing--nothing is already there!) can not just appear out of nothing", and I'll hold you to your own constraint on such assertions, "If you accept [your assertion regarding creation], in whole and not just in part, which you must or your whole [assertion regarding creation] falls apart,...". If so, who created this creator of yours? And who created *that* creator? And who created *that* creator? And who created *that* creator? And who created *that* creator? And who created *that* creator? And who created *that* creator? And who created etc...

Think about it.

Thought about it, and concluded that the first cause argument that all causes are the result of a previous cause is only as valid as far as you can identify those causes by evidence. To arbitrarily, without evidence, ascribe first cause status to something is intellectual sloth, to demand that it is unquestionable truth lacks intellectual integrity.

 

[dilloduck]

And we're living in it's arm pit. Would make a lot of sense.

If God stopped using deoderant maybe our air will clear up?