where angels fear to tread

[Davian]

That's good then that Christians have eyewitness accounts and Jesus himself as objective
evidence, along with personal experiences as well as scientific evidence for the biblical history.

With a nod to the OP, if you put all of that "evidence" together, do you have enough to falsify the scientific theory of evolution? No?

 

[True Scotsman]

True or False: In eternity past, there was nothingness.

- True

- False

- Other (please elaborate)

The question makes no sense. Time is not nothing. It is a measurement of motion or change in an entity. The boat was here when the sun was at zenith and it was there when the sun was setting. You see there was no time in the past when there was nothing. I believe that something has always existed in some form. I will be glad to extend my answer if you would like.

 

[AV1611VET]

The question makes no sense. Time is not nothing. It is a measurement of motion or change in an entity.

Unless there's no distance.

No distance = no time.

Since velocity = distance x time,

Then time = velocity / distance.

If distance doesn't exist as yet,

Then time = velocity / 0.

 

[Nithavela]

At 1.3 posts per day, I don't think you have to worry about me derailing a thread of yours, Nithavela.

And for the record, it takes at least two to derail a thread, does it not?

It's not my thread, it's Dysert's. He asked that this thread stay on the topic of his most recent question, and that mostly atheists should answer them.

The point of this thread is to try to clarify what others, particularly atheistic evolutionists (i.e., atheists who believe in evolution), believe about some specific items related to creation & evolution. I'm not interested in debating or arguing. I'm simply trying to get clarification of beliefs.

What I'll do is post a question, ask those interested to answer it, ask another question, wait for answers, and so on. After the questions & answers have been posted I'll try to summarize what has been discussed.

I hope there's enough activity here to provide a nice sample of atheistic evolutionary beliefs. Please stay on topic (i.e., whatever the current question is), and please do your best at providing as clear an answer to the questions as possible (with whatever commentary you wish to provide).

Thanks to all who participate!

And here you are, talking about angels and time, while his last question was about living and non-living matter.

This after you were asked to not derail the thread, and you stated that you'd bow out.

AV,please do not try to derail a non mudslinging thread..it has been to long since I have seen a thread not degenerate into ..yayaya,my religion says it aint so,that settles it..
Please restrain yourself and follow to the OP's wishes.

Okay ... sorry.

I'll bow out.

I'll give you that, though, it really takes two to derail a thread, and I still can't gather why you of all people have the gift to be able to post the most non-contextual blather, and then ALL members of the forum just abandon every other discussion and only talk exclusively about your posts. As I have once stated, I admire this, usually, but you are destroying a fellow christians thread, here. And you were asked to stop. And you promised to stop. And you didn't stop, which means that either you were lying about your promise or you already forgot it after 2 two pages of the thread.

 

[46AND2]

True or False: In eternity past, there was nothingness.

- True

- False

- Other (please elaborate)

Other--unknown.

 

[dysert]

That does sound like you're asking about abiogenesis.

But let me take a different tack, since you seem to be focusing on organic and inorganic, or alive and not alive.

Mighty oaks from little acorns grow. The mighty oak is a zillion times more massive than the acorn from which it came. The mighty oak is all alive. So where did all that living stuff come from? From the air, from the soil, from things that were not alive. It didn't happen in the absence of all life (that would be abiogenesis), but biological processes convert dead matter into living matter.

I'm still hung up on the definition of "life", but I'm intrigued with the oak/acorn thing. We'd probably agree that the acorn is not alive, and yet under the right conditions it brings forth life. So I'd say that the acorn has "potential life". The oak reproduces, not by spawning another oak, but rather by spawning acorns. So life can yield potential life (or life), and potential life can yield life. Which do you think arrived on the scene first -- the oak or the acorn?

 

[46AND2]

True or false: Several billion years ago there existed a formation of mass and/or energy that eventually spawned the material for the known universe.

- True

- False

- Other (please elaborate)

True. The universe, and all that is within it, has not always existed in its present form. It has changed, and continues to change, as the mass and/or energy rearranges.

 

[46AND2]

True or false: Several billion years ago there was a cataclysmic event (e.g., an explosion or rapid expansion) of the formation of mass and/or energy (from the previous question). This event resulted in the dispersion of all matter and energy that exists in the known universe today.

- True

- False

- Other (please elaborate)

True. (not an explosion)

 

[quatona]

True or False: In eternity past, there was nothingness.

- True

- False

- Other (please elaborate)

Other: The question is word salad.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Other: The question is word salad.

If that's word salad then the waiter ate most of it on the way over. All I see is a spot of lettuce and crouton crumbs.

What are you having trouble understanding?

 

[quatona]

True or false: Several billion years ago there existed a formation of mass and/or energy that eventually spawned the material for the known universe.

- True

- False

- Other (please elaborate)

Sounds good to me.

 

[quatona]

True or false: Several billion years ago there was a cataclysmic event (e.g., an explosion or rapid expansion) of the formation of mass and/or energy (from the previous question). This event resulted in the dispersion of all matter and energy that exists in the known universe today.

- True

- False

- Other (please elaborate)

That, too, seems to be an ok layman´s description of what science has found.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Originally Posted by dysert

True or false: Several billion years ago there existed a formation of mass and/or energy that eventually spawned the material for the known universe.

- True

- False

- Other (please elaborate)

​

False: The mass did not spawn the material for the known universe. It spawned the space of the universe for the mass to spread out.

Other: The mass did not expanded. Space was contracted inside a mass with no outer boundary. The universe and all the infinite void space universes still exist inside the original mass which is infinite.
​

 

[46AND2]

Please indicate which statement(s) you think is/are true regarding "the event" mentioned in Question 3:

1. The Event resulted in the formation of all inorganic matter and all energy only.

2. The Event resulted in the formation of all inorganic matter, all organic matter, and all energy only.

(Feel free to reword the statements if you don't understand what I'm getting at. It's not meant as a trick question.)

Ultimately, number 2, I suppose. The actual big bang did not produce organic matter, but obviously if "The Event" is true, as I have agreed it to be, and there is now organic matter, at some point, organic matter was formed.

To be clear, though, the organic matter was not formed BY The Event directly.

 

[quatona]

At this point I guess I should apologize for the vagueness (or "sloppiness") of the wording of the questions. On the one hand, I want them to be a bit vague because I don't want to introduce any bias by asking the questions. On the other hand, I'm not a scientist (obviously) so I can only use the language of the layman. If you find the wording sloppy, please feel free to qualify your answer by elaborating and using unsloppy language.

And I also remind everyone that I have no ulterior motive in asking the questions. I have no intention of dropping some climactic "conclusion" in here based on the answers. I am just trying to make sure I understand where "you guys" are coming from without getting bogged down in technicalities, counter questions, etc. So far I think it's going well (for me at least). So thanks for your contributions.

As far as I am concerned, I am sensing that you overestimate my commitment to these scientific findings. They are neither "where I am coming from", nor do they have any significance for anything that´s important to me.
It´s about the scientific consensus regarding the currently best explanation, nothing more and nothing less. I am not a scientist, I don´t have the will nor the time to double check their methods and results.
Thus, actually, it´s not up to me to answer these questions with "true" or "false".
If science would come to a different consensus tomorrow it wouldn´t be any skin off my nose.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Ultimately, number 2, I suppose. The actual big bang did not produce organic matter, but obviously if "The Event" is true, as I have agreed it to be, and there is now organic matter, at some point, organic matter was formed.

To be clear, though, the organic matter was not formed BY The Event directly.

Basic organic molecules are produced in nebular clouds (exploded stellar remains). Left handed circumpolarized light from a nearby star encourages left handed amino acids.

It's life soup out there...

 

[quatona]

Please indicate which statement(s) you think is/are true regarding "the event" mentioned in Question 3:

1. The Event resulted in the formation of all inorganic matter and all energy only.

2. The Event resulted in the formation of all inorganic matter, all organic matter, and all energy only.

(Feel free to reword the statements if you don't understand what I'm getting at. It's not meant as a trick question.)

The event resulted in everything that came after the event. I´m not sufficiently scientifically well-versed to tell you in which order, though.

I´m not quite sure, though, why - if learning about these things is so important to you - you don´t simply consult a science book.

 

[dysert]

If science would come to a different consensus tomorrow it wouldn´t be any skin off my nose.

I'm with you there!