Creation vs. Evolution

[kombiguy]

they're even unqualified to say the house was built by a contractor or architect.

the best they can do is say "maybe" it was built by a contractor or architect

we know what happened from .0000000001 second after the Big Bang onwards

as to WHY the Big Bang happened, or what was there BEFORE the Big Bang happened, we can only speculate

and of that which you don't know, say nothing...

I stand corrected. They would be stating a belief about a contractor, etc., not an empirically observable fact.
Although, I am confused by your assertion about speculation. Speculating is exactly saying things about which we don't know, nu?

 

[lamont]

we know what happened from .0000000001 second after the Big Bang onwards

We know pretty well what happened from 0.000001 second (1 Gev) onwards via extrapolation and that we know physics pretty well in the sub-Gev range. We have rigorous experimental evidence of the ~700,000 year (3000K) mark which is used to extrapolate backwards. At 10^-10 seconds you're still dealing with quark-gluon plasma, however, and I don't think we really know what was happening then (although 'God', so far, has not popped out of the equations).

finally, the Supreme Deity is unecessary:

how did the universe come to be created?

God created it

Who created God?

He's always existed.

as opposed to:

how did the unvierse come to be created?

it's always existed

you just cut out two levels there

Nicely done destruction of the First Cause / Aquinas / Aristotle argument.

There is no proof that the Universe itself cannot be uncaused...

 

[kombiguy]

There is no proof that the Universe itself cannot be uncaused...

Is there any evidence that there is anything that exists coming from nothing?

 

[H2Andy]

Is there any evidence that there is anything that exists coming from nothing?

you have the same problem whether you call the "something" God or the Universe

either way, you end up asking, "and where did IT come from?"

all evidence seems to point out that energy can't be created or destroyed, so ...

maybe framing the issue as "coming from nothing" is not a valid question to begin with

maybe "nothing" is an impossibility in the environment which led to the universe

(these are all "maybes." better minds than mine are stumped by this)

 

[kombiguy]

you have the same problem whether you call the "something" God or the Universe

either way, you end up asking, "and where did IT come from?"

all evidence seems to point out that energy can't be created or destroyed, so ...

maybe framing the issue as "coming from nothing" is not a valid question to begin with

maybe "nothing" is an impossibility in the environment which led to the universe

(these are all "maybes." better minds than mine are stumped by this)

All good questions. My question was aimed at the gentleman who said "There is no proof that the Universe itself cannot be uncaused" In that context, my question is sort of an inverse response to that assertion.

 

[wilkie]

Well the line between the contractor, and the architect blur during a project--What can be drawn, and what can be built sonetines varies.

I, as a contractor, have never been able to build exactly to a print. Some times "on sight enginering" has created something quite different than what was on the "plans", even when in constant contact with the architect, often I just had to make the plan work.

The only time the plans "work" is in a "cookie cutter" housing project--Read refinded & perfected plans (by repetition)................ Dull repitive work, which I say no to, but there are those who make a living doing such.

So go figure, who did what, when, where, why??????? Then try to figure out who did what a couple thousand years ago?

 

[MikeFerrara]

we know what happened from .0000000001 second after the Big Bang onwards

as to WHY the Big Bang happened, or what was there BEFORE the Big Bang happened, we can only speculate

and of that which you don't know, say nothing...

I'm no physicist but from what I've been able to glean from my reading, that's just it, they don't know.

Direct observations don't match the theory so enters dark matter and dark energy which would patch things up if they could find it. As far as I can tell they don't know what it is or where it is but without it the numbers are way off. If the numbers are way off, then we do not know.

To make the statement the "we know" when such huge holes exist, doesn't seem like science. It certainly wouldn't pass in engineering. Scientists have a distinct advantage in this regard. They never have to actually make it work. LOL

 

[Rick Murchison]

When I hear folks make the giant leap of talking about "before" the big bang, or that the pre-big-bang universe was the size of an orange & such I just chuckle, from both spiritual and theoretical physics hills.
Without time there is no "before" and no "size."
Rick

 

[MikeFerrara]

you guys have been basically saying, "show us proof of evolution" and we do.

then you say, that's not enough. so we do some more proving.

then you say "that's not enough, it doesn't mean that"

so we show you how it means exactly that

so you say, no, not enough proof ....


see a trend here?

on the other hand, you guys have yet to show A SHRED of proof that God exists and created the world, but are quite happy believing that WITH A LOT LESS PROFF that exists to show evolution is real and it works....

bugger that

proof of evolution:

fossil record
DNA testing
strata layering
transitional fossils
human development
observable evolution in viruses (such as HIV)
observable evolution in species (dogs to wolves)
and on and on....

proof that God exists:

the Bible says so

and yet, you happily accept that notion with no evidence what so ever, but of evolution, you continue to require more and more evidence the more and more evidence you are provided...

odd...

I certainly do see a trend. You don't offer proof. You offer what you accept as proof. I say, a fossil of a funny looking fish is proof that there were funny looking fish and you say it's proof that some fish evolved into mamals.

How many generations must have existed in that transition from fish to mamal? How many are represented in the fossilt record. It seems to me that they are claiming to understand the nature of a chain that has almost countless links because they have what they think are a very few of those links. Then we have the obvious holes n the fossil record as illustrated by fish that they believed extinct for 65 million years or so (gone from the fossil record?) and then shows up alive and well.

DNA...now here's proof for you. Where is the surprise that all life shows some DNA similarities? Where the sirprise in the fact that animals that are different show differences in DNA? But then they try to use the DNA differences to indirectly measure the time since splitting from a common ancestor...the existance of which is assumed rather than proven by DNA. To make matters worse they calibrate the time inference based on what? The fossil record. ok so now they add short term change data from bacteria and insects. The problem is that data points over such a short time aren't suficient to calibrate such a measurement over such a long time. The fossil record seems to offer far too few data points over the whole range to be valid. Assumptions as to linierity? curve fitting? Backed by data? How about a good old fashioned guage R&R. We engineers don't even accept the output of a mic or a simple weight scale without that much. So the problem is two pronged...the calibration of the time inference and the lack of direct evidence that the event, from which they are measuring time lapsed, ever happened in the first place.

Maybe we could sum up by saying...Creation of the universe...
that the big bang happened but we can't explain why?...not knowing why (triggers) is often an indication that you don't understand the process at all. Then the observed data doesn't come very close to matching the theory and the numbers don't work so we invent dark matter and energy to take up the slack.

Then we completely fail to explain how some of this dead stuff ever came to life in the first place.

Then we come up with a fanciful theory to explain how everything evolved from this new and very simple life that we can't explain the existance of. We supprt it with a fossil record that is missing millions of times more than it shows and observable "micro evolution" which shoes how we can go from fish to different fish or dog to different dog but doesn't show how we can go from fish to dog. We further support it with DNA which does, in fact, show that animals that look different really are different and the more different they look, the more different they really are.

And then we try to present it as fact? and claim to have something really figured out?

So, yes, I do see a pattern. I see that evolutionists do indeed demonstrate very strong faith.

I saw something cute that seems to illustrate it well.

Frog(t) = prince at t = instantaneous = fairytale
Frog(t) = prince at t = a very long time = science

 

[Rick Murchison]

So, yes, I do see a pattern. I see that evolutionists do indeed demonstrate very strong faith.

And that, sir, is the truth. The holes in the evolutionary chain are filled with pure faith. I happen to believe that evolution is a valid theory; that it's the best explanation we have based on the spotty evidence available. But I am not so naïve as to think it lacks positively *huge* gaps. I also happen to believe that it is "God's Way" - and accept that the gaps can be filled. On faith.
Rick