A Question for Creationists

[AV1611VET]

It's myopic because it deals with reality?

That too.

 

[mzungu]

That too.

I might as well say "creationists are myopic because they cannot see FSM"

 

[Doveaman]

Most certainly.

So, you'd say a petri dish is still coming into being because there's bacteria growing inside of it?

The bacteria is growing within the space of the petri dish.

According to the Big Bang model, galaxies do not develop within space like bacteria.

The galaxies and the space exist as one "rubber sheet" that is expanding from an infinitesimal point (singularity) in the distant past.

"This singularity is sometimes called "the Big Bang", but the term can also refer to the early hot, dense phase itself, which can be considered the "birth" of our Universe." - Source.

The "birth" of our Universe suggests the Universe didn't always exist.

 

[Doveaman]

There is no such belief in Hinduism. In general, the universe is viewed as being eternal and cyclic.

Sounds like God-energy being transformed into other forms of energy.

 

[lasthero]

Sounds like God-energy being transformed into other forms of energy.

No, it doesn't. At all.

 

[Doveaman]

You have your cart well in front of your horse I'm afraid......before you can consider whether or not your god has a cause, you first have to demonstrate that it even exists...!

Scientists agree the universe has a cause. They simply don’t know what that cause is. We creationsits call that cause God. If scientists are able to find the cause they will find God.

But regardless of that, if you assert that your god is without cause, simply because you "have no reason", then equally there is no reason that matter/energy has no cause...

I’m not the one asserting God has no cause. If, as scientists asserts, energy has no cause and God is pure energy (God-energy), then God has no cause.

It's the logical conclusion.

That's yet another baseless assertion....

Just because you have no basis doesn’t mean there is none. Not all evidence must be physical, especially if God Himself is not physical.

Humans have "known" many things that have turned out to be completely wrong....what level of arrogance permits you to claim that your version of god is any more likely to have existed than any of the other 3000 or so that man has invented over time...?

All versions of God says God did it.

 

[Doveaman]

No....I'm pointing out a very basic logical fallacy...you make the (unsubstantiated) claim that everything exists must have a cause. Having established that 'rule', you immediately violate it by then asserting that your deity is exempt...! It's a piece of self-serving special pleading.....

Our deity is pure energy (God-energy), and scientists agree energy has no cause.

 

[Doveaman]

But of course you're not confused. You've found the answer to everything. It's everyone else who happens to think like you, but who differs on the specific theological details, that is confused.

Well, I will admit I don't know God perfectly, but I do know He is only revealed through His Son:

"No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him...I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - (Matt 11:27, John 14:6).

I believe in the Son of God, the historical Jesus, who is the only way to know the true God.

 

[Doveaman]

And where is this 'another place'?

Not knowing where a place is doesn’t mean there is no place.

Ever needed directions?

 

[Doveaman]

That's because science is myopic.

It's myopic because it deals with reality?

Many scientists and evolutionists agree that reality is not limited to the physical.

In other words, many scientists and evolutionists agree that science is myopic.

 

[lasthero]

Not knowing where a place is doesn’t mean there is no place.

No one ever said there was a 'place' they came from.

 

[Elendur]

The bacteria is growing within the space of the petri dish.

Indeed. And it does nothing to indicate whether the dish is forming or not.

According to the Big Bang model, galaxies do not develop within space like bacteria.

Agreed. It was merely an example.

The galaxies and the space exist as one "rubber sheet" that is expanding from an infinitesimal point (singularity) in the distant past.

"This singularity is sometimes called "the Big Bang", but the term can also refer to the early hot, dense phase itself, which can be considered the "birth" of our Universe." - Source.

The "birth" of our Universe suggests the Universe didn't always exist.

Note that we have an event horizon which we cannot observe past (allegedly).
That does nothing to speak about what happened before the event horizon.

Example (one of many I can imagine):

Imagine that our universe is described by that line.
The straight line at the bottom is the observable time-line of it, where it has a structure that we can exist within.
The event horizon (big bang event) would be at the left end of the straight line, the end of 'human-allowing' period would be at the right end of the straight line.

Then the curve follows and brings us back to the event horizon.

This would produce the same observations as the ones we have, but yet it would lack a start.
In fact, it would also lack an end and be cyclic!

I'd love to read what your thoughts are about this.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Many scientists and evolutionists agree that reality is not limited to the physical.

In other words, many scientists and evolutionists agree that science is myopic.

The fact that many scientists think science cannot answer questions it was not intended to answer does not mean that they think science is myopic. It just means that they think there are questions or claims which cannot be addressed by science, even in principle.

 

[AV1611VET]

The fact that many scientists think science cannot answer questions it was not intended to answer does not mean that they think science is myopic. It just means that they think there are questions or claims which cannot be addressed by science, even in principle.

Okay then -- science is blind.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Okay then -- science is blind.

To what?

 

[AV1611VET]

To what?

As I'm fond of saying, when science can build a machine that can do this:

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

... then I'll reconsider its limitations.

 

[frogman2x]

You really don't know much about DNA, do you?

Are you really suggesting thay chimp DNA and Human DNA is the same and can't be disitisnguished from each other? If you ae, you are the one who doesn't know much about DNA

FYI, you are talking to biologists. We've seen DNA. We know what a gene looks like, we have a sense of how similar or different various species are. In short, you'll have to be a bit more specific than "DNA says this".

I have said it separates not only one species from another but kinds within the same species. It can tell if I am related to you. Now it is up to you to refute that.


Does it, now? How does it do that?

Steady-state, I believe, and no, I wasn't implying that. I was merely pointing out the worthlessness of bare assertions.

You mean like you are doing?


<mysterious voice> It is not what it seems. </mysterious voice>[/quote]

Mysterious voice> It is only what real science says it is.

 

[Astrophile]

Wait...did matter and energy always exist or was there a time before the big bang that nothing existed?


Matter and energy have existed for the whole of time. There was no 'time before the big bang that nothing existed', because if there was time then something (i.e. time itself) existed, and if nothing existed time did not exist.

To put it another way, time (or rather space-time) is as essential a part of the universe as matter and energy. One cannot have a space-time continuum without it being part of a universe. The fact that the age of the universe appears to be finite does not necessarily mean that the universe had a beginning. After all, the surface area of the Earth is finite (510 million square kilometres), but that doesn't mean that that we can fall off of the edge.

 

[frogman2x]

Where is your EMPIRICAL evidence for this? The Bible is not empirical evidence.

I ask yu first. Where is your EMPIRICAL evidence> Why are you bringing the Bible into this discussion? Stick to the science

I could not find it; however I do know what OMNIPOTENCE means.

Congratulation on being admitted to the typo police. You can get promoted quickly from what I post.

What is your point? You are trying show that your God is omnipotent, and I will demand you bring forth EMPIRICAL evidence for your claim

Okay, let's skip omnipotence andd start with your EMPIRICAL evidence. That goes back to myu first question---where did all of the matter in the universe originate.

(that is if you know the meaning of empirical).

DUUUUH.

A book written by bronze age goat herders is irrelevant to science. I want EMPIRICAL evidence.

There is no EMPIRICAL evicence as to HOW OR when the universe came into being. We both accept what we beleive by faith alone.

So now we must use some simple logic. Do you know what logic is?

It is impossible for matter to create itself out of nothing. Therefore there must have been a cause. Now I will bring the Bible into it. I vote for God to have been the cause. Who do you vote for?

I have more EMPIRICAL evidence in the first chapter of Genesis than you do for all that the TOE praeaches.

 

[frogman2x]

It's myopic because it deals with reality?

The reality that evos accept by faith alone whatever the the latest guess is.