Originally posted by KellyJayDo you not understand that you can barely write? "even if they really do
Well to be honest, that would be a nice change from you, being
honest. Even the when you highlight the words I did you use, you put
quotes around words I didn't say. I'm not suprised you lack the ability
to understand what I wrote, since you cannot even quote it correctly in
two attempts. To grab my meaning use my words not the ones you
want to claim I said.
Kelly
not disagree with itself" (word for word) and your last statement doesn't actually refer to anything at all.
How can you blame me for being unable to make head or tail of your barely literate ramblings?
Originally posted by KellyJayAgain with the "before the start" thing. There was no before. Of course, you obviously have a better theory than relativity...
You were here before the BB to know time wasn't occuring?
How much of nothing was occuring before the start of everything
occuring? 🙂
You were monitoring it?
If the BB was the start, before the start there was, a holding pattern?
No wait that would be something!
Kelly
Originally posted by NemesioI also do not believe that it is scientifically 'logical' to conclude that matter/energy was 'created'
Well, Scott and I disagree on this.
I agree that the Big Bang happened. I agree that the universe was born at that point and that
everything that exists now is the product of that event.
I do not agree that time 'started' then. I do not believe that time ever 'started,' just as I don't
think that axes on a Cartesian plane start. We merely mark ...[text shortened]... second before the Big Bang, so any answer is merely a matter of blind faith.
Nemesio
then. To opine that the universe came about ex nihilo or that it has always existed is a
matter of faith -- neither can be demonstrated to be compellingly true, since we do not know what
existed in the time before the Big Bang. No scientist can provide evidence about the state of the
universe even one second before the Big Bang, so any answer is merely a matter of blind faith.
I can go with this. An excellent summation, sir. I applaud your keen insight and open-mindedness in the matter.
Cheers.
Originally posted by NemesioTime is a property of the universe. If, as you claim, time precedes the big bang, then so does the universe. An important question is, if no information was passed from the state of the universe before the big bang (assuming such a thing existed) to the current universe (after the big bang), then does it matter to us whether or not it existed.
I also do not believe that it is scientifically 'logical' to conclude that matter/energy was 'created'
then. To opine that the universe came about ex nihilo or that it has always existed is a
matter of faith -- neither can be demonstrated to be compellingly true, since we do not know what
existed in the time before the Big Bang. No scientist can provide e ...[text shortened]... verse even one second before the Big Bang, so any answer is merely a matter of blind faith.
Originally posted by dj2beckerSo, are you saying that we can never understand how he did it? Is he still doing it? Is all speciation since 'God did it' still being controlled by the hand of God outside the laws of science and statistics or is evolution actually taking place?
The only viable explanation is that God did it.
Why are you, and others trying to prove that evolution cant work when a God did it explanation does not require that? Why do people keep making suggestions as to where the water in the flood came from when a God did it explanation does not require it to have come from anywhere (its a miracle after all).
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou should clarify what you mean with 'evolution'.
So, are you saying that we can never understand how he did it? Is he still doing it? Is all speciation since 'God did it' still being controlled by the hand of God outside the laws of science and statistics or is evolution actually taking place?
Why are you, and others trying to prove that evolution cant work when a God did it explanation does not requir ...[text shortened]... d did it explanation does not require it to have come from anywhere (its a miracle after all).
I was specifically referring to cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, stellar and planetary evolution, organic evolution, macro evolution.
Micro evolution is the only one that has been observed. Yet I have never seen a dog producing a non-dog. Providing evidence of micro evolution does not mean the other types are true.
Originally posted by dj2beckerThere is no distinction between micro and macro evolution. The others are seperate from biological evolution.
You should clarify what you mean with 'evolution'.
I was specifically referring to cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, stellar and planetary evolution, organic evolution, macro evolution.
Micro evolution is the only one that has been observed. Yet I have never seen a dog producing a non-dog. Providing evidence of micro evolution does not mean the other types are true.
Originally posted by XanthosNZPerhaps I could add (for dj2's benefit) that macro can be best regarded as the sum of micro.
There is no distinction between micro and macro evolution. The others are seperate from biological evolution.
True, micro is observed and macro not - because it takes too long, it's as simple as that. However, the results are all around you.
2 edits
Originally posted by dj2beckerMacroevolution does not predict that dogs would evolve into "not-dogs". Strawman!
You should clarify what you mean with 'evolution'.
I was specifically referring to cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, stellar and planetary evolution, organic evolution, macro evolution.
Micro evolution is the only one that has been observed. Yet I have never seen a dog producing a non-dog. Providing evidence of micro evolution does not mean the other types are true.
Are you stupid, ignorant or just a liar?
Originally posted by sugiezdMacro and Micro Evolution is a distinction made only in the minds of Intelligent Design/Creationists. No biologist makes such a distinction except in addressing these people.
Perhaps I could add (for dj2's benefit) that macro can be best regarded as the sum of micro.
True, micro is observed and macro not - because it takes too long, it's as simple as that. However, the results are all around you.
Originally posted by dj2beckerThat is freakys favorite strawman. The mistake you are making is not realizing that the definition of the word 'dog' is built around heredity. So even though dogs frequently produce offspring that are genetically unique and quite often significantly different in looks and body from all known previous 'dogs' we still call them 'dogs' simply because they were produced by dogs.
Yet I have never seen a dog producing a non-dog.
If the current varieties of dogs world wide were 'discovered' today and it was not known that they were bread by man then they would almost certainly be classified as a fairly large number of species.
Now tell me what the offspring of a wolf and a dog is called? And if it breeds with another wolf?