Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Originally posted by Jerry Smith If interpretation is required, evolutionary biologists gladly submit their interpretation to be examined by any and all to see if there are any flaws in it.
Explain the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that matter is neither created or destroyed. Where did matter come from in the first place?
Originally posted by mac_philo Please try to stay on-topic. Go back and read the first post. This thread is for scientific evidence for creationism.
Originally posted by Josephus
"3) Can you give evidence that an uncreated universe would have no order."
Well, it is true that something can't come from nothing. Would you agree? All causes have a causer except one thing that is the cause of all causes but is itself "unmoved." - Plato.
Ut therefore must = c2
The speed of light in our universe = square root of Universal Time factor
Gt = 0 (since theory assumes he is unaffected by time)
Gt/Ut = 0 always - meaning God is still unaffected.
However, God can choose to enter our universe at any point away from the matter that causes it's existence, and thus it's affect on time. Pretend God picked a point in space where the universe would have to expand to before the universe's time was in synch with the position he picked (as the universe expanded).
Simply waiting 3 days at that spot the very instant the singularity exploded very very very very very far away (little mass close by to affect his relative time), within 3 days the matter of that explosion reached his position and the matter cloud's time was affected - changed slower exponentially until time within the matter cloud became stabilized - perhaps at the exact point where God was floating. If the matter to energy ratio in the universe reached a 1/1 ratio right at the moment it reached God, then that matter cloud's time (Ut) would be ticking in sync with the relative position of God's time - a positional clock reading 3 days, but elsewhere in the universe, especially near the point of the origin of the singularity, billions of years may have passed.
Quite simple.
Originally posted by npetreley
Any and all? Hogwash. Evolutionary biologists would never consider a creationist's view of his/her interpretation of evidence.
So who is doing the "peer review" of the interpretations of the evidence? Other people with the same a-priori assumptions about evolution.
So at best you may get some disagreement or refinement of details, but you are all going to be finding what you want to find in the evidence, and that is "evolution".
So you think you've got checks and balances, but you have nothing of the sort.
Originally posted by npetreley
Any and all? Hogwash. Evolutionary biologists would never consider a creationist's view of his/her interpretation of evidence.
So who is doing the "peer review" of the interpretations of the evidence? Other people with the same a-priori assumptions about evolution.
So at best you may get some disagreement or refinement of details, but you are all going to be finding what you want to find in the evidence, and that is "evolution".
So you think you've got checks and balances, but you have nothing of the sort.
Originally posted by mac_philo
Please try to stay on-topic. Go back and read the first post. This thread is for scientific evidence for creationism.
Originally posted by s0uljah
It is on topic, and you can't explain it. So, since you don't have evidence, or explanation, or apparently even an opinion on this, how can you use any logic or belief system?
Originally posted by npetreley
So who is doing the "peer review" of the interpretations of the evidence? Other people with the same a-priori assumptions about evolution.
Originally posted by eldermike
Livefree,
Here is something to consider.
Nick's life is at stake in your senerio. For that reason I like your senerio. Discounting your third possibility and going with; Nick did it, or Nick was trying to help as the two possibles, would you convict; knowing that His life is the necessary payment?
Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Strictly speaking, it isn't on topic for the thread. The person who posted the thread was asking for evidence in support of creationism. Asking a question that I or any one else has a verifiable answer to (where did matter come from in the first place?) is hardly giving evidence that confirms creationism. It is at most a critique of science for not imparting omniscience.
Except one wildly inaccurate web-page and some items that Josephus posted (for which we are awaiting relevancy as evidence), no one has posted anything that could even be evidence for evolution if it were true...
Yes, I have been baited into debating off topic with some of the ones who have posted their complaints about evolutionary theory in this thread. I'm not the one to complain about off-topic posts, since I am guilty myself. I guess CancertoIniquity has figured out by now that no one is going to post the evidence he asked for (if he is reading the thread)... I can't imagine him still caring about whether the thread goes off-topic.
Originally posted by mac_philo
This thread is for scientific evidence for creationism. You can rail against the second law all you want, but it will not provide evidence for creationism. Nor does the fact that you are expressing the same cliched misconception of the 2nd law provide evidence.
If two students do a math problem, and one correctly shows that the other is flawed, does that mean either is right? Of course not.
This is a long, boring road, that is being travelled in many other threads. If you have no evidence, don't hurt your case by veering off topic with nonstarters that every novice creationist uses.
Originally posted by s0uljah
This law has enormous implications regarding the origin of matter in our universe.
Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Maybe so, but we are not discussing the origin of matter in the universe. We are discussing the origin of living species on the planet Earth. Specifically, we are discussing whether there is evidence that they were created supernaturally during fairly recent history.
Hi Jerry-
I understand you point, but I see it as evidence of creationism. The absence of scientific explanation for this arguement, points to only one thing, in my very humble opinion.
Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Hi! In my opinion the absence of a scientific explanation for the existence of matter/energy only points to one thing too... ignorance about the origin of matter and energy. If ignorance is the only evidence for the theory of creation, I cannot consider it scientific.
On the other hand, the version of creationism that posits only that God created the Universe is no threat to the biological theory of evolution, so I don't have any problem with it in principle. In fact most legitimate ideas of creation have no bearing at all on the scientific theories of evolution - and as such, I have no problem with them.
Nice to meet you, by the way
Originally posted by s0uljah
Either existence is real or it isn't. If it is, which I think you will agree is true, then there had to be a "something" in the first place. Given that "something" can't come from nothing, only one explanation fits, that there was a Creator, that is infinite. And He is the only true infinite "thing" in the universe. That is the point where we can stop, no?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?