20 Mar 09
Originally posted by KellyJayIf it is not possible to distinguish between God existing and God not existing on the basis of experiment or observation then there is no difference between creation by divine designer and creation by the various physical and biological theories that we have discussed.
If your asking me can you/I prove God is real, no. That does not
at mean that you cannot know God, meet God, become a Child of
God through Christ. God can reveal Himself to you, you cannot force
God to do anything.
Kelly
20 Mar 09
Originally posted by DeepThoughtActually, I've always limited my discussion to the creation of life, but
If it is not possible to distinguish between God existing and God not existing on the basis of experiment or observation then there is no difference between creation by divine designer and creation by the various physical and biological theories that we have discussed.
when you look at the universe in total, only God could have setup the
whole thing to support life.
Kelly
20 Mar 09
Originally posted by KellyJayPage 18, 7th post down was where the Big Bang was first mentioned in this thread. It was your post. You have deliberately missed the point of what I said. If it is not possible to distinguish the two cases, God existing or God not existing, by any experimental or observational method, then the universe appears as if it is naturally occurring and the theories are correct.
Actually, I've always limited my discussion to the creation of life, but
when you look at the universe in total, only God could have setup the
whole thing to support life.
Kelly
20 Mar 09
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI'm not going to bother going back to tell you where I said this, but
Page 18, 7th post down was where the Big Bang was first mentioned in this thread. It was your post. You have deliberately missed the point of what I said. If it is not possible to distinguish the two cases, God existing or God not existing, by any experimental or observational method, then the universe appears as if it is naturally occurring and the theories are correct.
when I do discuss creation I've said that it is only creation that has
God giving us universe without going from nothing to everything! With
ID and evolution both of those can have something from nothing!
Kelly
20 Mar 09
Originally posted by KellyJaySomething from nothing? Yess! You admit that you were wrong earlier! Something comes from nothing! You actually belive in BigBang and god is not necessary! An anti science guy like youself embrace science as something correct! On step forward, I tell you!
With ID and evolution both of those can have something from nothing!
20 Mar 09
Originally posted by KellyJaySo what you are saying is that there is no way of determining that God exists, unless you insist that it is impossible to get something from nothing, in which case God is inevitable, as there are no contending cosmological theories that do not require the spontaneous creation of everything from nothing, or from an initial singularity which amounts to the same thing.
I'm not going to bother going back to tell you where I said this, but
when I do discuss creation I've said that it is only creation that has
God giving us universe without going from nothing to everything! With
ID and evolution both of those can have something from nothing!
Kelly
First this means that if it can be shown that it is not possible to get something from nothing you have a contradiction as it is then possible to determine whether God exists or not. If it can be shown that it is possible to get something from nothing then there is no way of distinguishing a universe with God and a universe without God so the scientific theories stand.
Quantum theory shows that particles can be spontaneously generated and reabsorbed by the vacuum. This is something from nothing.
20 Mar 09
2 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI do believe God is the first cause of all things that require one.
So what you are saying is that there is no way of determining that God exists, unless you insist that it is impossible to get something from nothing, in which case God is inevitable, as there are no contending cosmological theories that do not require the spontaneous creation of everything from nothing, or from an initial singularity which amounts to the ...[text shortened]... es can be spontaneously generated and reabsorbed by the vacuum. This is something from nothing.
Now you may have a theory that suggests all things can come from
nothing, that is in my opinion an unworkable theory. Without a cause
why would anything change? Change either is in play or it isn't, and if
it is you lost the ability to say time wasn't part of the whole process!
Once an event occurs you have a reference point so words like before,
during, and after come into play, due to the point of reference the
event gives.
Exactly where did the initial singularity come from, why did it change,
how long did it take to change, you simply run into the wall where you
have to say we cannot talk about those things, which is denying
something that demands an answer as far as I'm concern.
Kelly
20 Mar 09
Originally posted by KellyJayDear KellyJay, you don't know anything about science, yet you have a lot of opinion about it. Why don't you open a book of science and learn to read it before you create your own theories from nothing? See, you create something from nothing yourself and have no problem whatsoever doing it. Your god creates something from nothing in your creation. And still you repeat your religious mantra - "It is impossible to create something from nothing!"?
I do believe God is the first cause of all things that require one.
Now you may have a theory that suggests all things can come from
nothing, that is in my opinion an unworkable theory. Without a cause
why would anything change? Change either is in play or it isn't, and if
it is you lost the ability to say time wasn't part of the whole process!
Once ...[text shortened]... hose things, which is denying
something that demands an answer as far as I'm concern.
Kelly
23 Mar 09
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat you are saying is that you will judge scientific theories on the sole grounds of whether they fit with the biblical account or not. In fact you claim observations are incorrect and the theories wildly out because you insist on a recent date for creation. We can see stars at a huge distance which means the universe is 13.6 billion years old. The precise biblical truth you are hoping for does not exist. You believe in a lie.
I do believe God is the first cause of all things that require one.
Now you may have a theory that suggests all things can come from
nothing, that is in my opinion an unworkable theory. Without a cause
why would anything change? Change either is in play or it isn't, and if
it is you lost the ability to say time wasn't part of the whole process!
Once ...[text shortened]... hose things, which is denying
something that demands an answer as far as I'm concern.
Kelly
Your objections to the various theories all apply to a creator/designer cosmology, and even more so. Where did God come from? Why did God decide to create the universe? You simply run into a wall where you have to say we cannot talk about these things, which is denying something that demands an answer.
23 Mar 09
Originally posted by DeepThoughtNo, I'm saying does it fit period. The biblical account is a matter of
What you are saying is that you will judge scientific theories on the sole grounds of whether they fit with the biblical account or not. In fact you claim observations are incorrect and the theories wildly out because you insist on a recent date for creation. We can see stars at a huge distance which means the universe is 13.6 billion years old. The p ...[text shortened]... ave to say we cannot talk about these things, which is denying something that demands an answer.
faith it isn't something that can be proven, only accepted. That is not
the case with evolution at least that is what people suggest anyway, it
either can be shown to be true or it cannot. The beginning of all things
happened when, from where did it all come, why it came, and so
on? Are those things also taken on faith, are they also just either
accepted or rejected, because we cannot prove them right or wrong too?
The complaint about design is that everyone wants to know where the
designer comes from, did that designer have a designer and so on,
the same thing is there for the Big Bang and singularity as well, where
did they come from? I asked specific questions you ignored them all
and are with this post simply questioning my motives for my objections
and not addressing my objections, which is just putting this on me
instead of the objections being brought forward, I did not ask for a
date for the beginning, I don't care how long ago it was supposed to
have taken place in this thread, only the why!
Kelly
23 Mar 09
Originally posted by KellyJayI´ve spent post after post explaining how the theories work. I have answered all your queries as well as I am able to. Your statement that I haven´t is frankly rude. I´ve provided evidence and you just ignore it and make the same points again and again.
No, I'm saying does it fit period. The biblical account is a matter of
faith it isn't something that can be proven, only accepted. That is not
the case with evolution at least that is what people suggest anyway, it
either can be shown to be true or it cannot. The beginning of all things
happened when, from where did it all come, why it came, and so
on? ...[text shortened]... re how long ago it was supposed to
have taken place in this thread, only the why!
Kelly[/b]
There is no evidence for a designer. There is evidence for natural selection, abiogenesis, and the big bang. Therefore the latter three theories are better theories than a designer conjecture.
The fact that the theories are incomplete does not make them invalid. No one denies that there is more work to be done, and more questions to be answered. If you insist on a God of the Gaps you end up having to deny science as the gaps get filled in.
23 Mar 09
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThis is science, and an antiscience guy like KellyJay is not in his right Forum here. Religion and science never mix.
I´ve spent post after post explaining how the theories work. I have answered all your queries as well as I am able to. Your statement that I haven´t is frankly rude. I´ve provided evidence and you just ignore it and make the same points again and again.
There is no evidence for a designer. There is evidence for natural selection, abiogenesis, and ...[text shortened]... If you insist on a God of the Gaps you end up having to deny science as the gaps get filled in.
KellyJay said he would start a thread in Spiritual where he can continue discuss the matter of evolution and design, but he didn't. So I did it for him.
The thread is Thread 110229. A discussion is going there already concerning evolution. KellyJay is invited.
24 Mar 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasOne of them is enough, I don´t think I have anywhere near the patience for a forum full.
This is science, and an antiscience guy like KellyJay is not in his right Forum here. Religion and science never mix.
KellyJay said he would start a thread in Spiritual where he can continue discuss the matter of evolution and design, but he didn't. So I did it for him.
The thread is Thread 110229. A discussion is going there already concerning evolution. KellyJay is invited.
24 Mar 09
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI disagree, you have spent post after point expressing your opinion
I´ve spent post after post explaining how the theories work. I have answered all your queries as well as I am able to. Your statement that I haven´t is frankly rude. I´ve provided evidence and you just ignore it and make the same points again and again.
There is no evidence for a designer. There is evidence for natural selection, abiogenesis, and ...[text shortened]... If you insist on a God of the Gaps you end up having to deny science as the gaps get filled in.
as I have, you have not answered all my questions. When it got to
first cause, the all things from nothing you basically just said, that
was when time started there was no before that is bunk! There is
no getting away from a first cause in either ID or a godless BIG
Bang! At some point you get to what made what react, and then
the questions will always come, where you got the thing that
reacted, and the thing that caused the reaction! It is no different
than asking for design of the designer. I'm not attempting to be
rude to you, but at the same time I found your statement a bit
disingenuous suggesting you've proven your point and accuse me
of being dishonest because I still disagree with you. I can accept
with no hard feeling that we disagree, but your last has a personal
tone to it, as I’m quite sure my reaction here does to you too, for
that I’m sorry.
Kelly