Creation vs. Evolution

[Uncle Pug]

Absolutely nothing. Not absolutely nothing like "infinite empty space." I mean absolute nothingness. No time, no space, no nothin'. Nothing existed.

Is that known for a fact? Or is it a tenet of belief?

Is it supported by evidence?
Scientific evidence. Testable. Repeatable.

 

[Cacia]

I like to think of quantum physics as very spiritual.

The Tao of Physics by Fridoff Copra and

The Holographic Universe.

Science and spirituality meet in a full circle.

But...you have to be open to paradox and mystery.

 

[do it easy]

Speaking of testable, knowable, metaphysics, etc... Math and physics are strange partners. In pure math, there is no truth- just conditional truth. If A is true, then B follows, but there is nothing to say that A is true in the first place.

Physics, in it's simplest form, is the study of nature. It uses math as a framework, but at the end of the day, physicists still have to reconcile the difference between reality and that underlying mathematical paradigm. Sometimes it fits well, and other times, nature is wrong.

An astrophysicist, a physicist, and a mathematician are riding in a train across Scotland. They see a lone black sheep in the distance through the window.

The astrophysicist declares, "All sheep are black!"
The physicist quickly interjects, "All sheep in Scotland, are black!"
The mathematician corrects them both, "In Scotland, there exists at least one sheep, of which, at least one side is black."

My point in a round about way, is that I think that this Creation vs Evolution, or whatever it is we're debating, are two sides to the same coin. They just start with different underlying axiomatic beliefs. I've often thought that we should change this to the "First Person to Convert Owes $20" thread- if someone's beliefs are changed because of this thread, they owe the person that converted them $20- game on!

 

[Cacia]

yes, they don't contradict at all, in my world.

In fact, I am really surprised when the discussion is either/ or.

So, you and I would get forty, right?

 

[do it easy]

yes, they don't contradict at all, in my world.

In fact, I am really surprised when the discussion is either/ or.

I suppose all your quarters stand on their edge.

Good luck trying to win that $20...

 

[daniel f aleman]

Well, in science there is a tenent that states that which exists can be proven to exist.

That's pretty much all that you really need to get through the day. I don't worry about that which doesn't exist...

Anyway Eric Clapton is God.

 

[Cacia]

Science is a subset in a bigger framework.

Now, I sound like Soggy.

 

[drbill]

Science is one way of knowing the bigger framework, but it answers what "is" not "why" it is.

I cannot answer whether God exists, but if She does... I assume She'd be smart enough to "delegate" and let evolution do the dirty work over eons of time.

 

[Cacia]

there...you have it.

 

[Hank49]

Hank, basically you don't know what you're talking about. You are letting your lack of understanding cloud your judgement. Like many others in this thread, you are trying to argue against something without a fundamental basis of understanding. Simply because *you* don't understand doesn't mean that there aren't those that do.

.

You're assuming you know my limit of understanding. I'm not saying you're absolutely wrong. I'm just not agreeing that you're absolutely right. And I would guess even Lamont wouldn't bet his house on these theories of "nothing" and how it all began.