creation vs evolution

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
Very good!
Now you're thinking, at last..... :)
You see?
You've asked for a 'reason' for cancer, which means that you believe there is or are reasons for cancer.

Now, back to our existence. As soon as you wonder 'why', or 'how', you have basically consented to the common sense logic that there had to be a reason.

So what is the reason that people get cancer?
 

6days

New member
Greg Jennings said:
Saying "he was always there" is no better an answer than saying "the universe has always been here" to me. If logic can be applied to the beginning of time/universe, then it should also be applied to the beginning of God.
Ok..... logic is that anything which begins to exists, does so due to a cause. The universe had a beginning, so it has a cause. That cause, ultimately existed uncaused. So...you have 2 choices...
Either you believe that nothing caused everything? Or, that something which existed eternally caused everything.
Which do you believe?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
Ok..... logic is that anything which begins to exists, does so due to a cause. The universe had a beginning, so it has a cause. That cause, ultimately existed uncaused. So...you have 2 choices...
Either you believe that nothing caused everything? Or, that something which existed eternally caused everything.
Which do you believe?

Correct, it has a cause but that does not mean your particular deity caused it. In fact the evidence suggests otherwise.The evidence certainly does not support a 6000 year old universe that your particular theology demands.

To answer your specific question, something caused the universe to "appear" almost 14 billion years ago. I don't know what that was and I can live with that.
 

6days

New member
Correct, it has a cause but that does not mean your particular deity caused it. In fact the evidence suggests otherwise.The evidence certainly does not support a 6000 year old universe that your particular theology demands.
Strawman..... Again.
The 'argument' was that you apply the same logic to the beginning of the universe to God. I used logic and asked a question based on logic..... You avoided the question, I think.
Here it is.....Again
Do you believe nothing caused everything? Or do you believe that an uncaused cause which existed eternally, caused everything?
 

George Affleck

TOL Subscriber
I have issues wrapping my head around something coming from nothing, in regards to ANYTHING. I have trouble picturing a beginning to the universe, but I also have trouble imagining a universe with no beginning that has existed forever.

In terms of a creator, I've never understood why your question doesn't apply to Him. Why, if the universe must have a beginning, must God not? What "began" God? Did He poof into existence one day and start creating?

Saying "he was always there" is no better an answer than saying "the universe has always been here" to me. If logic can be applied to the beginning of time/universe, then it should also be applied to the beginning of God.

If I may offer a possible solution.

The universe has not always been there.
The universe is God's handiwork. He was, and He spoke it into existence by His creativity and for His good pleasure.
God is not the universe nor can it contain Him.

This is why the question does not apply to Him but it does apply to His handiwork.
There is no more correlation between God and the universe than there is between Leonardo da Vinci and the Mona Lisa.

He is not dependent on His handiwork. Nevertheless, we have it as proof of His existence.
Even if He had not communicated to us by depositing the scriptures with us, we would have no excuse for not knowing that He is.

If you have trouble accepting a beginning to the universe it is, perhaps, because you do not believe that God is big enough to do that.
 

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
Strawman..... Again.
The 'argument' was that you apply the same logic to the beginning of the universe to God. I used logic and asked a question based on logic..... You avoided the question, I think.
Here it is.....Again
Do you believe nothing caused everything? Or do you believe that an uncaused cause which existed eternally, caused everything?
No, I do not believe an uncaused cause caused everything. Happy now?

I believe, based on the information provided by current science, that the universe came into existence between 13 and 14 billion years ago. I do not know what caused it. I do not need to know what caused it to accept the time line andinformation provided by physics and cosmology.
 

eider

Well-known member
So what is the reason that people get cancer?

OK......... I promise to give you an answer if you will, in your next post, also ask me:-
'So what is the reason for the existence of the Universe, Galaxies, solar systems, Earth et al?'

That's a promise. I never break promises.

Eider's Honour! :e4e:
 

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
OK......... I promise to give you an answer if you will, in your next post, also ask me:-
'So what is the reason for the existence of the Universe, Galaxies, solar systems, Earth et al?'

That's a promise. I never break promises.

Eider's Honour! :e4e:

Nope, I really dont care what your answer to that question is, given the answer you gave about cancer. since based on your cancer answer, your response will be worthless.
 

eider

Well-known member
Nope, I really dont care what your answer to that question is, given the answer you gave about cancer. since based on your cancer answer, your response will be worthless.

Excellent.....
I was not wrong.
You are so predictable!
:rotfl:
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
Current science is uniformitarian and not open-system in which an infinite and personal God can re-order or re-direct things according to his plan. Yet all Biblical statements about God creating are that way. Obviously it helps if your people's heritage has a number of events in it which underwrite this. But any of us, even if we are outside that ethnic group, can appreciate that a number of things can happen once you accept that the system is not closed.
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Current science is uniformitarian and not open-system in which an infinite and personal God can re-order or re-direct things according to his plan. Yet all Biblical statements about God creating are that way. Obviously it helps if your people's heritage has a number of events in it which underwrite this. But any of us, even if we are outside that ethnic group, can appreciate that a number of things can happen once you accept that the system is not closed.

Indeed, open certification is of the greatest import when duly noted that the underwriting is censured and tenured with clarification and demonstrating all ethnicities are equally empowered by said certification.
 

6days

New member
No, I do not believe an uncaused cause caused everything. I believe, based on the information provided by current science, that the universe came into existence between 13 and 14 billion years ago. I do not know what caused it. I do not need to know what caused it...
Science is discovering the 'what' and the 'how'. Are you not interested in those answers because you fear where the evidence might lead you?
Yes..... it is a good start to acknowledge that there must be a cause which has existed eternally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
Science is discovering the 'what' and the 'how'. Are you not interested in those answers because you fear where the evidence might lead you?
Yes..... it is a good start to acknowledge that there must be a cause which has existed eternally.
Of course I am interested in science. That is why I know a fair deal about it. And what I have learned supports the understanding that the universe is 13+ billions of years old, the solar system about 4.5 billion years old and that life evolved and continues to evolve on the earth.
I don't know how the universe began, but that does not necessarily matter to me, do I need to acknowledge that there must be an eternally existing cause and certainly not your Biblical deity. I am more than reasonably sure that your understanding based on a literal Genesis is simply wrong and not supported by evidence.
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
Uh, wrong. Perhaps some science classes would do you well.

Ok, let us consider what proof science has to back up your statement rebuttal.

But first, let us look at the scientific method. He is interested in finding a law or principle that explains his observations about something he is interested in. He then forms a hypothesis and he tests it. He designs a test that can be repeated over and over without variation that without fail produces the same results. He then has a basis for some further experimentation. This experiment has to be able to be replicated by other scientists. In order for these other scientists to replicate the initial experiment, they have to have an accurate step by step description of what the original experiment entailed and sought to prove.

A scientist looks at say botany. Let's take a scientist of integrity like Mendel. He planted peas, guess what he harvested. Peas. There was some variety in the peas, but no matter how many times he planted peas, he got peas. He discovered the concept of what is now called dominant and recessive genes, but did he ever produce anything but peas by planting peas? No.

How about Japanese breeding of goldfish. They have bred goldfish and have produced some very unusual looking fish, but you what? No matter how unusual, they are still goldfish.

Evolution teaches that life evolved out of some primordial soup by chance. And from that soup mankind was produced over bazillions of years of chance.

Which scientists have dared to suggest an experiment and figured out how to produce life out of this primordial soup?

Which scientists have so perfectly figured out what that soup was made of and the ambient conditions surrounding that bowl of soup and produced life?

If I remember correctly, some scientists were able to produce some amino acids which evidently are some building blocks of proteins, but proteins are nowhere near as complex as DNA nor the processes that normally occur within single cell animals.

Has any scientist actually demonstrated evolution?

Did any scientist or group of scientists or a university or a collection of universities ever demonstrated evolution in the laboratory? Did they take a life form of one animal genus and turned it into a more advanced genus?

Where is that tadpole experiment that breeds frogs until they turn into kittens or guinea pigs?

Please show us the scientific experiments that demonstrate one genus turning into another?

There are none, there fore all you have is a unprovable hypothesis.

Nature proves that hypothesis to be wrong.

Nature demonstrates time and time again that everything reproduces after its own kind.
 

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
Ok, let us consider what proof science has to back up your statement rebuttal.

But first, let us look at the scientific method. He is interested in finding a law or principle that explains his observations about something he is interested in. He then forms a hypothesis and he tests it. He designs a test that can be repeated over and over without variation that without fail produces the same results. He then has a basis for some further experimentation. This experiment has to be able to be replicated by other scientists. In order for these other scientists to replicate the initial experiment, they have to have an accurate step by step description of what the original experiment entailed and sought to prove.

A scientist looks at say botany. Let's take a scientist of integrity like Mendel. He planted peas, guess what he harvested. Peas. There was some variety in the peas, but no matter how many times he planted peas, he got peas. He discovered the concept of what is now called dominant and recessive genes, but did he ever produce anything but peas by planting peas? No.

How about Japanese breeding of goldfish. They have bred goldfish and have produced some very unusual looking fish, but you what? No matter how unusual, they are still goldfish.

Evolution teaches that life evolved out of some primordial soup by chance. And from that soup mankind was produced over bazillions of years of chance.

Which scientists have dared to suggest an experiment and figured out how to produce life out of this primordial soup?

Which scientists have so perfectly figured out what that soup was made of and the ambient conditions surrounding that bowl of soup and produced life?

If I remember correctly, some scientists were able to produce some amino acids which evidently are some building blocks of proteins, but proteins are nowhere near as complex as DNA nor the processes that normally occur within single cell animals.

Has any scientist actually demonstrated evolution?

Did any scientist or group of scientists or a university or a collection of universities ever demonstrated evolution in the laboratory? Did they take a life form of one animal genus and turned it into a more advanced genus?

Where is that tadpole experiment that breeds frogs until they turn into kittens or guinea pigs?

Please show us the scientific experiments that demonstrate one genus turning into another?

There are none, there fore all you have is a unprovable hypothesis.

Nature proves that hypothesis to be wrong.

Nature demonstrates time and time again that everything reproduces after its own kind.

Wrong, and actually proteins, just as a chemical structure are more complicated than DNA. So, a little more study might help you frame your arguments.
 

6days

New member
Jonahdog said:
Of*course I am interested in science. That is why I know a fair deal about it.
It is surprising then, that you seem unintersted in the cause of everything.*

Jonahdog said:
And what I have learned supports the understanding that the universe is 13+ billions of years old, the solar system about 4.5 billion years old and that life evolved and continues to evolve on the earth.
Strange...because what I have learned is that science supports the truth of God's Word. We live in a young universethat seems fine tuned designed for life...and that life only comes from life.*
 
Top