My theory on creation.

[PsychoSarah]

Then define your terms.



Then define your terms Sarah.

-_- I don't have to, because for evolution, I use the standard scientific definition, not a deviant one, I'm not a creationist and thus feel no need to define creationism with specifics to deity, etc., and I don't recognize Darwinism as a legitimate term that warrants defining.

I use the default definition for evolution, so I shouldn't have to define it all the time. Anyone that doesn't even know that basic definition isn't going to make for much of a debate. Not my fault a lot of people use the term incorrectly.

But I'll humor you: evolution is the change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, and mutation.

That's what it is. People can expand on the basic principles here, sure, but this is what evolution is.

 

[pitabread]

No, it's the definition that is behind Darwinian evolution, you ignore it and it never goes away. That's on you.

It's not the commonly used definition of the term "Darwinian evolution". You appear to trying to use "Darwinian evolution" as a synonym for either methodological naturalism and/or metaphysical atheism, and don't seem to care that most people don't use "Darwinian evolution" that way.

It's confusing and your obstinate resistance to understanding this and using clearer terminology is just baffling at this point.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Non-sequitur response is a non-sequitur.

Naw. Non sequitur response is a banana.

 

[mark kennedy]

-_- I don't have to, because for evolution, I use the standard scientific definition, not a deviant one, I'm not a creationist and thus feel no need to define creationism with specifics to deity, etc., and I don't recognize Darwinism as a legitimate term that warrants defining.

Yea actually you do, definitions are part of the process we call scientific methodology. Refusal to do so is called begging the question of proof.

I use the default definition for evolution, so I shouldn't have to define it all the time. Anyone that doesn't even know that basic definition isn't going to make for much of a debate. Not my fault a lot of people use the term incorrectly.

Which is why you define your terms.

But I'll humor you: evolution is the change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, and mutation.

My definition and it it doesn't account for giant leaps in evolution as natural history.

That's what it is. People can expand on the basic principles here, sure, but this is what evolution is.

Yes I know, welcome to the discussion.

 

[mark kennedy]

It's not the commonly used definition of the term "Darwinian evolution". You appear to trying to use "Darwinian evolution" as a synonym for either methodological naturalism and/or metaphysical atheism, and don't seem to care that most people don't use "Darwinian evolution" that way.

It's confusing and your obstinate resistance to understanding this and using clearer terminology is just baffling at this point.

I understand why you are baffled, it's because you've never encountered a real argument.

 

[pitabread]

I understand why you are baffled, it's because you've never encountered a real argument.

Is everything an argument to you? Maybe that's part of the problem... You seem more interesting in "winning" than being understood.

 

[mark kennedy]

Is everything an argument to you? Maybe that's part of the problem... You seem more interesting in "winning" than being understood.

Nope, I always learn from these discussions but we have to get to the actual facts in evidence. It takes some time because the forums are infested with those who would pass of fallacies for arguments.

 

[tevans9129]

That's just a confusing statement for someone to read if they aren't previously familiar with your postings.

I am not familiar with his postings and I thought it made perfectly good sense.

 

[pitabread]

I am not familiar with his postings and I thought it made perfectly good sense.

Really? Then can you explain why it makes sense to you?

 

[pitabread]

Nope, I always learn from these discussions but we have to get to the actual facts in evidence. It takes some time because the forums are infested with those who would pass of fallacies for arguments.

So... how about those phylogenetic trees huh?

 

[Speedwell]

Really? Then can you explain why it makes sense to you?

It would make sense to another Evangelical Protestant, one who has no theology which would enable him to read Mark's favorite Darwin quote as anything other than a declaration of metaphysical naturalism.

 

[tevans9129]

1) I take a Christian to be anyone who can swear to the tenets of the Nicene Creed with a clear conscience, which is also the standard for this forum.

Is this part of the Nicene Creed or is it just the belief of one group?

[We believe in the tenets of the Nicene Creed. Our belief is that the Bible is God’s infallible written Word, the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. We believe that it was uniquely, verbally and fully inspired by the Holy Spirit and that it was written without error (inerrant) in the original manuscripts. It is the supreme and final authority in all matters on which it speaks.]

Do you agree this is the Nicene Creed?

[
The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God,
The Father, The Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.

Amen.]

 

[Astrophile]

Darwinian evolution is:

the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

For what it's worth, I agree that all change, in the organic and in the inorganic world, probably is the result of natural law, and not of miraculous interposition. This is part of what Pitabread has called methodological naturalism or metaphysical atheism. However, I prefer to use the phrase 'Darwinian evolution' for biological evolution, not for changes in the inorganic world.

From Darwin's words, it looks as if even before Lamarck's time, scientists accepted that change in the inorganic world was the result of natural law and not of miraculous interposition. Lamarck's and Darwin's innovation was to extend the principle to biological phenomena, and specifically to evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

Is this part of the Nicene Creed or is it just the belief of one group?

[We believe in the tenets of the Nicene Creed. Our belief is that the Bible is God’s infallible written Word, the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. We believe that it was uniquely, verbally and fully inspired by the Holy Spirit and that it was written without error (inerrant) in the original manuscripts. It is the supreme and final authority in all matters on which it speaks.]

No, it is not part of the Nicene Creed, which does not speak to how we are to interpret scripture.

Do you agree this is the Nicene Creed?

[
The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God,
The Father, The Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.

Amen.]

Yes

 

[tevans9129]

First, my question, which I have asked a number of times and perhaps not all with the same exact wording.

…as long as you start "in the beginning" and if there is empirical evidence for when, how and where space, matter, energy, time and natural laws came into existence and the sequence of those events

The empirical evidence for the 'Big Bang' (the expansion of the universe from an initial state of high temperature and high density) is the observed redshifts of the galaxies, the presence of an almost isotropic cosmic microwave background, and the isotopic and elemental abundance ratios D/H, He-3/H, He-4/H, and Li-7/H. The cosmic microwave background is interpreted as the redshifted radiation of the fireball of the 'Big Bang'.

What does that have to do with, “in the beginning”, IOW, before the BB?

 

[tevans9129]

The age of the universe follows from the relation between the distances and the redshifts of galaxies and quasars, and it is confirmed by the ages of the oldest stars derived from the H-R diagrams of globular clusters. The most recent measurements give an age of 13.8 billion years for the universe, and this answers the question when 'space, matter, energy and time came into existence'.

Can you provide a link that makes your assertion as being a fact provable with empirical evidence?

How does that answer “when” it came into existence, “in the beginning”? Are you suggesting the SMET and the natural laws came into existence after the BB? If so, and if, you believe the BB prior to the rapid expansion contained the universe in a "dot" or Singularity, where was it located? Would space not been required for the "dot" or Singularity.

 

[tevans9129]

So far as I know, these quantities came into existence everywhere, throughout the universe, although at the beginning the universe was much smaller than the nucleus of an atom. As to how they came into existence, I don't know.

OK, so why would I need all of your previous comments to find out that you cannot answer the question as it was asked?

 

[tevans9129]

As to the sequence, according to chapter 6 of The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, 'In the early universe - when the universe was small enough to be governed by both general relativity and quantum theory - there were effectively four dimensions of space and none of time.' This implies that space came before time. Also, it appears that energy came before matter; the first 'elementary particles' of matter (quarks and gluons) came into existence about a trillionth of a second after the origin of the universe, when the temperature was about 1 trillion kelvin. - see Chronology of the universe - Wikipedia .

Again, how is that applicable to, “in the beginning”?

Would you consider this to be “empirical proof” of the BB?


“It's one of several scientific models that attempts to explain why the universe is the way it is. The theory makes several predictions, many of which have been proven through observational data. As a result, it's the most popular and accepted theory regarding our universe's development.”

How the Big Bang Theory Works

"one of several...models...attempts...the theory...many (but not all)...most popular...theory"

IMO, that is not empirical evidence even for the BB, much less for when SMET and the natural laws came into existence, is it for you?

A very informative article, IMO, can you read it and come away with the conclusion the BB is empirical science

 

[tevans9129]

You asked a question, and I have tried to answer it. If you want any more information, and if you want to find out more about the empirical evidence that supports these conclusions, you will have to read books, scientific papers and websites about cosmology. However, I would emphasise that the 'Big Bang' cosmology is supported by abundant empirical and theoretical evidence, from both astronomy and fundamental physics, more evidence than can be contained in the space of an internet forum.

Sorry, I fail to see how you answered anything relative to, “in the beginning” other than acknowledging that you do not know. IF, my question was relative to after the BB, why would I make a point of, “in the beginning”?

 

[tevans9129]

No, it is not part of the Nicene Creed, which does not speak to how we are to interpret scripture.

[We believe in one God,
The Father, The Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.]

I agree.


[We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.]

I agree.

[For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.]

Can you quote the verse(s) that this refers to? Is it your understanding that “incarnation” is one and the same as being born?

[For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.]

I agree.

[He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.]

I agree.


[We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.]

I agree.

[We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.]

Does that mean that non-Catholic “churches” are not part of Jesus’ Church? If so, is that also denying that I am a Bible believing Christian?

[We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.]

Is that suggesting that if a person is not baptized, he is not saved? What is the “one baptism” that this is alluding to? Can you provide the scripture?

[We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.

Amen.]

So do I.