Creation vs. Evolution

[onfloat]

Never said I doubt the existance of God. Your putting words on my keyboard. I just asked why you assume that he didn't create things that are older than 4-8 thousand years ago. Words on paper written by man?

 

[Soggy]

If there was no hydrogen, it WAS created....from nothing, the ultimate "creation" since all other elements stemmed from this.

Well, hydrogen is far from a fundamental particle. Hydrogen is made up of a proton and an electron. Those particles are made of quarks. I think there is some belief that quarks are not fundamental particles either, but I'm not that up on recent QED.

I'm not going to argue this point with you. The universe did appear, from where, who knows. It could have been a succession of failed closed universes. It could have come from another dimension. Black Holes exist, yet they are not 'created' in the sense that you mean it. There are lots of theorys...no one has answers. Just because we don't know does not mean god did it. It just means we don't know. You are welcome to conclude that god did and be happy with that conclusion.

But what about the helium?

What about it? Helium is formed from nuclear fusion inside stars. I think some of it was formed during the expansion itself, but I may be wrong. I do know that it is nice to breathe and makes me sound like Mickey Mouse and that entertain my friends.

But concluding that we now know all about the creation of the universe, specifically pre big bang, is just as unbelievable as the Old Testament and Creation to me. There are just too many unanswered questions.

We don't know all about the creation of the universe. We know many things very well, we know some things kinda well, and many things we know very little about.

 

[Soggy]

hahahahaha.

Soggy, I always assumed you were like...60 or so. You seem so authoritative...and a wee bit edgy for a 29 year old. (are you really 29) sorry, off topic.

Yes, I'm 29. I'm edgy because there is an overabundance of people in this thread that are basing their opinions and beliefs on misinformation.

I do find myself wondering what you will beleive when you are as old as Hank and I.

Life just hasn't brought you to your knees maybe?

I know you are smart and well educated. My point is that as we experience more, we have more questions, not have more answers. (In general)

If the last 29 years of my life are any indication, I'll be even more confident in my beliefs, but only time and science will tell.

 

[Soggy]

I wrote a long reply to this, but I deleted it and decided that it's just not worth it. Believe what you want to believe even if you have to deny obvious physical evidence to do so. That's your right. Based on your first post, you are obviously lacking a basic grasp of physics, geology, and biology that I cannot fill in for you. Just know that with respect to the age of the universe and Earth, you are wrong. I don't know what will happen when I die. Neither do you. We both have our beliefs. Mine just happens to be supported by science.

How can God have an age when he created time? He must be above time and in full control of it, and if he isn't then he isn't God.

As for things being millions of years old, go and have a good look at the subject of carbon dating, all it is not as it seems.

If you can't grasp creation then how are gonna cope with God being three completely seperate persons and yet also one person. Don't worry that one still blows my mind. An don't get me started on predestination.:11:

Surely some of the things you've seen whilst diving have made you think there has to be a god? But I s'pose your gonna tell me that some of the things you've seen people do have made you doubt his existance too?

Stebzy.

 

[Cacia]

Sometimes scientists seem too involved in the details. It is one thing to use inductive reasoning to build a body of knowledge, I am just not that confident that the deductive reasoning holds up when you attempt to go backwards.

We would probably have enjoyed the long version, Soggy.

 

[Soggy]

I am just not that confident that the deductive reasoning holds up when you attempt to go backwards.

What evidence do you have to support that statement, or is it just your intuition?

We would probably have enjoyed the long version, Soggy.

It probably would've been good for a few laughs, probably many of them at my expense.

 

[Cacia]

Hmm, I wish I was better schooled in philosophy so that I could articulate this better or write a mathematical expression to better express it.

It is more than intuition, although I am afraid it falls short of empirical.

I think of inductive knowledge as a pyramid. Certain facts lead you to certain conclusions and the body of known knowledge "grows"

I think once you start deducing "backwards" the assumptions are less sound.

But..no..I cannot prove it.

It is really just a reflection of how vast I think the things unknown to us are VS the things that we DO know, or have confirmed with a *system* of validating reality called science.

The truths usually lie in paradox and mystery and science just falls short. Science is just a subset of what I beleive..I don't test all reality with it. You can't and still be open to any suggestions that might lead you to some new reality, even the ones science may later confirm.

Soggy, if you had a preminition... a very specific random one and then it came to pass. How could your world create any "order" out of that if it was too statistically improbable to have happened?

Certainly, you cannot deny that there are other dimensions or "planes" out there?

I see intellect and science often totally obliterating basic human spirituality and instinct.

Not to debate prohibited topics, but if I could mention certain bioethical contoversies, I am amazed that the basic maternal protective instinct can be estinguished by science in the case of creating life for experimentation, etc.
The more technology we get the more we regress in many cases. You may not follow, being a linear thinker and all, but that is what I mean about making certain assumptions with science as your only tool.
So..yes, i guess the answer to your question is intuition. But don't underestimate the power found in intuition, instinct and spirituality.

Thomas Moore explains all this better than I with archetypes. Why are the same myths often repeated in cultures throughout history seperated by thousands of years and geographically isolated from one another? There is more at work here than science, I am convinced....don't know what it is, but I am waiting and watching and listening.

And the subjective observation that many hard-core scientists seem to have an "arrested" quality about them. Not all but about as many as people who are stunted by lack of formal education.

 

[Soggy]

Certainly, you cannot deny that there are other dimensions or "planes" out there?

String Theory says there are 11 dimensions. I haven't decided whether or not I accept string theory.

There are definitely at least 4 dimensions, perhaps 5, but what you and I are defining as dimensions are probably different.

I see intellect and science often totally obliterating basic human spirituality and instinct.

I agree.

 

[do it easy]

Catherine, you're thinking of inductive reasoning, which works well in the make believe world of mathematics, but it breaks down in the real world, or at least what we perceive is the real world.

I can take a chunk of gold, and cut it into a smaller chunk and it still behaves like gold. Great, let's apply inductive reason. I could reason that if I continue to slice it and dice it smaller and smaller, the smaller pieces would still be gold. Of course, we know that this breaks down once we start cutting truth and beauty from gold.

Using metaphor, we can apply this same reasoning in the opposite direction... Most of us have an idea of how fast we need to go to pass another car in a certain distance or catch a baseball that is thrown to us. Our brain is an amazing device that can solve the differential equations to figure this out. Of course if the cars or baseballs start travelling at relativistic speeds, all bets are off.

Again my point is that we apply these neat models to the universe, but we know little about how well the model fits at the fringe of knowledge.

 

[Cacia]

very nicely put...both of you.

We all agree.

The danger is when people cannot accept scientific reality, and also when scientists cannot ponder the unknown without some model to guide them.

We live and grow and learn in the tension between the two forces. Bet Soggy really thinks I am a moonbat now.

The thing that frightens me the most in society today, is I feel that people are losing their ability to process information.
For example, using the laws of probablity,

I am more likely to get a child molestor hiring one off my hotel list than
If I meet a random maid and operate off of instinct and hire her.

In one situation, the molester chooses you.
In the other, you choose the sitter.

It is simple really, but I am shocked that most people don't seem to be able apply that. Is there empiracle proof out there, a study? No, but I don't need one. It is logic. Some people however cannot come to that conclusion on their own. Same problem diving...people will focus on various details, and math and gas planning "trees" and never consider the forest.

Guess I am firmly off-topic.

I am really arguing that if you limit yourself to what science has proven, then you miss at least a few boats. Medicine is a perfect example.