The evidence for Evolution.

[AV1611VET]

We have. No biblical literalist prayer and Bible study in the public schools.

Uh-huh.

And I'm Genghis Khan.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The difference is this. The creator exist outside of time. The universe exist inside of time.

This isn't necessarily true; the contents of the universe are timelike, but the universe itself may not be.

If the universe always existed then it has to overcome two obstacles:
1) If the universe existed from eternity past....today would never arrive. Yet, here we are.
2) If the universe existed from eternity past then through entropy it would have lost all it's energy eons ago.

Neither of these are necessarily true - the first assumes absolute time, which we know from General Relativity to be incorrect; and the second assumes the low entropy state at the big bang is a one-off, which isn't necessarily true. Both General Relativity and quantum mechanics (and combinations of the two) have solutions that allow infinite past and future temporal extents (here's a recent QM based hypothesis that doesn't involve eternal past entropy increase). There are also so-called 'closed' models where spacetime 'folds' round at the big bang so that time itself begins within the universe, but the universe itself is timeless, i.e. it just is. Another interesting one is a time-symmetric universe expanding forwards and backwards in time from the big bang.

 

[-57]

Of course, I don't care about it as much as you do. Sin and death are here now and and we need redemption from them whatever their source.

Whatever the source..is a denial of the biblical account...unless it is the biblical account. Evolutionism denies the biblical account.

But sin is not a metaphysical entity which "entered the world." That's a metaphor. Sin requires awareness--a knowledge of good and evil. Likewise death is not mere cessation of life, it is awareness of our own mortality. How did that awareness come about?

That's not how it is used in Romans 5:12. You seem to be using the verse to suggest the human race at one time in its history received this understanding. If that's the case it's unbiblical.

Usually only 5:12 is used, but if you continue we read:
18Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

You asked "How did that awareness come about?" I say read Genesis. It tells you there.

Remember Beliefnet?

Sure do. Lots of people there.

 

[-57]

This isn't necessarily true; the contents of the universe are timelike, but the universe itself may not be.

Neither of these are necessarily true - the first assumes absolute time, which we know from General Relativity to be incorrect; and the second assumes the low entropy state at the big bang is a one-off, which isn't necessarily true. Both General Relativity and quantum mechanics (and combinations of the two) have solutions that allow infinite past and future temporal extents (here's a recent QM based hypothesis that doesn't involve eternal past entropy increase). There are also so-called 'closed' models where spacetime 'folds' round at the big bang so that time itself begins within the universe, but the universe itself is timeless, i.e. it just is. Another interesting one is a time-symmetric universe expanding forwards and backwards in time from the big bang.

It's easy to complicate the question...but it still doesn't get around
1) If the universe existed from eternity past....today would never arrive. Yet, here we are.
2) If the universe existed from eternity past then through entropy it would have lost all it's energy eons ago.

You're timeless universe makes no sense considering the stuff of the universe is said to change and move. If you want to deny a creator and exchange it for ...it just is, What can I say? Except you have great faith in something you need to factualize by seeming to give proof to an unproven theory or conjecture.

 

[Paul Finch]

Special pleading? Really?
OK, Paul Finch.....where did "stuff" come from? Can you explain it with out your own form of special pleading?

Can't we just say "we don't know" or must we "make something up"?

 

[Paul Finch]

The difference is this. The creator exist outside of time. The universe exist inside of time.

If the creator lives outside time who and how did they find out it was there?

 

[-57]

Can't we just say "we don't know" or must we "make something up"?

We don't know is a fine answer. I accept that....but this means you can't deny the possibility of a creator.

 

[-57]

If the creator lives outside time who and how did they find out it was there?

The creator told us.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's easy to complicate the question...but it still doesn't get around
1) If the universe existed from eternity past....today would never arrive. Yet, here we are.
2) If the universe existed from eternity past then through entropy it would have lost all it's energy eons ago.

I've given some alternatives; ignoring them doesn't make them go away.

You're timeless universe makes no sense considering the stuff of the universe is said to change and move.

Like I said, the universe is spacetime, there's no requirement for it to be embedded in space or time.

If you want to deny a creator and exchange it for ...it just is, What can I say? Except you have great faith in something you need to factualize by seeming to give proof to an unproven theory or conjecture.

If I wanted to deny a creator I would do so. What I'm telling you is that if you want to use arguments based on physics, the physics should conform to what we already know for certain (e.g. time is relative, not absolute), and you can't discount alternative physical models just because they don't conform to your non-physical beliefs. To argue against them you need to show how they're wrong - and between some guy on the internet and cosmologists who've spent their careers studying the subject and formulating those models, it's not hard to guess who would be successful.

 

[Paul Finch]

The creator told us.

Via a man.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

How about false prophets and diabolical mimicry?

Are you talking about theirs, or yours? How would you know the difference? How can you know for sure it wasn't Satan that set you on the path you're on, do you think he couldn't fool you?

 

[SteveB28]

My wife made a good point.

We now have a Republican president, a Republican Senate and a Republican House.

Perhaps God is giving this country one last chance for a revival.

And no excuse for when things start to head downwards........

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you talking about theirs, or yours?

Theirs.

How would you know the difference?

By comparing it to the Documentation.

How can you know for sure it wasn't Satan that set you on the path you're on, do you think he couldn't fool you?

Can you tell which team you're on if you score a touchdown and those in white robes cheer, while those in white lab coats frown and complain?

 

[AV1611VET]

And no excuse for when things start to head downwards........

Well when the only direction is upwards........

 

[-57]

Via a man.

...and prophecy

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You do understand that if there is "stuff" today...there is the need for an uncreated creator to make the "stuff".

Why?

It is well understood that "stuff" can't self create itself from nothing.

Is it? When was "nothing" ever studied, to be able to make such an assessment?

As they say, you can't be and not be at the same time.

Go to a quantum physicist, and repeat that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I can't wait to here where the stuff of the Big Bang came from without special pleading.

It's not "special pleading" to say that one doesn't know when one doesn't know.
Acknowledging ignorance is mere honesty - not a fallacy.

Special pleading is when you create a general rule and then say that it applies to everything "except this thing here, because it's a special case", just to suit whatever argument you're making.

It's one thing to critize a group of people for "special pleading" ...but Paul Finch really shouldn't do that when his creation event requires "special pleading"

I don't know what Finch's position on this issue is.
But in any case, the current scientific position is that we don't know (yet?).

I know that those words ("i don't know") terrify you though...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The difference is this. The creator exist outside of time. The universe exist inside of time.

That's incorrect. It's the other way round: time exists inside the universe.
Space-time is what the universe consists of. Time is an integral part of the universe.
So to say that the universe exists INSIDE of time, is just plain wrong.

If the universe always existed then it has to overcome two obstacles:

Well... strictly speaking, the universe DID always exist.
You see... "always" is a period of time. For all of time, to be exact.
So whenever time itself existed, there was a universe. How could it be otherwise, since time is an integral part of the of the universe?

So yea... the space-time continuum has always existed. That is not an incorrect statement at all.

1) If the universe existed from eternity past....today would never arrive. Yet, here we are.
2) If the universe existed from eternity past then through entropy it would have lost all it's energy eons ago.

Time isn't infinite in the past.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's easy to complicate the question...but it still doesn't get around
1) If the universe existed from eternity past....today would never arrive. Yet, here we are.
2) If the universe existed from eternity past then through entropy it would have lost all it's energy eons ago.

There is no need to get around "what-if" questions, if the premises of those "what-if" questions are false...

Again: time isn't infinite in the past.

You're timeless universe makes no sense considering the stuff of the universe is said to change and move.

That's inside the universe.

If you want to deny a creator

I see no point in "denying a creator", just like I see no point in "denying pots of gold at the base of rainbows, hidden there by leprechauns".

If you wish to claim a creator, then the burden of proof is on you.
Just like it would be if you wish to claim pots of gold at the bases of rainbows.

and exchange it for ...it just is,

Nobody here has said that "it just this" and most certainly hasn't said that such would be a sufficient explanation in scientific terms. So now, you're just resorting to strawmen.

Except you have great faith in something you need to factualize by seeming to give proof to an unproven theory or conjecture.

Or.... you could just be honest and not misrepresent our position.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We don't know is a fine answer. I accept that....but this means you can't deny the possibility of a creator.

Just like you can't deny the possibility that pixies make grass grow, that we are all in brains in vats or that leperechauns hide pots of gold at the bases of rainbows.

Pointing out that unfalsifiable claims can't be falsified, is as useless as it gets.