"But the problem is of course that w/o evolution there is no only remaining choice. " Aaaaaaahhh.... now this brings up something interesting. Man needs to always have an explanation, even if it means making up gods to explain things. Look at history for the many examples. If NO choices remain, than the only honest thing you can say is "I DON'T KNOW". Why is that so hard? If I am hypothetically rejecting evolution, then my answer would HAVE to be "I DON'T KNOW", unless I could produce a new defendable theory. "So we both now that it is germane to the discussion, but I will be Humble and Lovable and won't "go for the jugular" " No it's not. If I disproved evolution beyond all doubt today, it would not lend 1 ounce of support to creationsim. Do you not agree? The disproof of one theory does not in any way help prove another theory. It only removes competition. But the other theory could be just as false. If you REALLY want to discuss evolution, and "go for the jugular", and then be eaten alive instead, go to http://www.talkorigins.org and debate the guys there. They will quickly point out the flaw in your mathematicall attack as conveniently leaving out the process of SELECTION, which is NOT random by any means, and is capable of having far faster effects than just mere mutations. Many other problems with your implications as well, but frankly, I've wasted enough time on this, and don't need to get into an even longer debate on evolution. Go pick on the guys at http://www.talkorigins.org You will be humbled. peace axeman
Here's part 2: The significance of all this is that we live in one dimension of time that is unidirectional. For ease of discussion, I'll call this a half dimension of time. Events in a universe constrained by a half dimension of time always have a beginning and an end because they are so contrained. Now by definition time is the dimension in which cause and effect take place so if Hawking's theorem is true, then we know that there is a First cause in at least two dimensions of time (or more of course). And a First Cause in two dimension would not even have to intersect our single half dimensional time line. In other words, this Being would have no beginning or end. Thus God does not have to have a beginning or end as Hawking's Theorem has never been disproved.
I agree that mathematically that's not a proof. And thanks for the link! I sincerely mean that. If I am wrong about evolution I want to know. My numerical questions above were genuine and I'd like to hear from people knowledgable. If you know of any other links, feed 'em to me...
"And a First Cause in two dimension would not even have to intersect our single half dimensional time line. In other words, this Being would have no beginning or end." "Thus God does not have to have a beginning or end as Hawking's Theorem has never been disproved. " Non-sequitor. WHAT "being"? Where did Hawking or anyone mention a being? Hawking is speaking of the universe before there was time and dimension. How can you apply this to a "god"? How can a god even exist without time and dimension? Dimension of WHAT? Dimension of matter? Are you claiming a matter-less god of sorts? How does this apply to a "creator". Hawking is stating a theory of how the universe came into being, but makes no mention of an external creator of any sort. peace axeman
You're right. I let my bias slip into my wording there. Hawking would never mention the word Creator. I should have said something like First Cause or something more neutral.
You're right. I let my bias slip into my wording there. Hawking would never mention the word Creator. I should have said something like First Cause or something more neutral
Your impressing me. Your turning out to be one of the more honest theists I have come across Sigh.... I was up VERY late last night working on trading systems to make up for my lost time on ET Happy to say.... things are looking "juicy". Need to spend more time away and on my trading. peace axeman
oops...I am late for class, but if you are becomming a little more of an honest thesist shoeshine, I do think you must still reconsider your Genesis... This 'weird' you talk of may well be something to do with the way you make such categorical statements: as... exact sequence and matches exactly so intemperately. So let's see.... 1. Creation of the physical universe. (1:1) Gen(1:1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. All at once, or the stars first then the earth, or either.. or it doesn't matter ?!?! The answer to this conundrum however appears in (1:14) 2. Transformation of the earth's atmosphere from opaque to translucent. (1:3) That simply is Not Possible. There is NO mention of ANY atmosphere by and up to (1:3) Atmosphere even stretching the meaning as "firmament" is first mentioned in Gen(1:6) Note that God names the firmament as "heaven" in (1:8) 3. Formation of a stable water cycle. (1:7) Gen(1:6) God works on a "firmament" for the first time. He makes this firmament thing whatever it is, to "divide the waters from the waters". Up to now there is no"firmament", no atmosphere. Gen(1:7)"And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament, and it was so." Helloo...Here there is water ABOVE the atmosphere or ABOVE heaven. That is most certainly not a stable water cycle. A stable water cycle is maintained by water from outer space?!? 4. Establishment of continents/oceans. (1:9) Gen (1:9)And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. Just tell me how does that exctly establish the continents and oceans? One sea in one place?? Water is all over the earth. So is the one place supposed to be whaaat... Earth??? How does that match any known science on how the land THEN oceans masses were formed, as you have said it does in your now infamous phrase "match perfectly the astronomical and archaeological record"? Scientific record says land first then water (eventually)!! 5. Transformation of the atmosphere from translucent to transparent, i.e. sun, moon and stars became visible on the earth for the first time. (1:14-16) Gen (1:14)And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years Now here firmament and heaven are both separate (in the firmament - of the heaven) yet God names the firmament AS Heaven in in Genesis(1:8). However let's just ignore that.. and you are saying here that the firmament IS atmosphere. (oops.. and God makes the stars here!!??) This now has the unfortunate result of endorsing the fallacy of your #2 item and the consequent nonsense of #3. Of course the thing is not to take any of this literally, but is it also not to try to provide any coherence out of it too. Just let its contradictions and undecipherable jibberish wash away everything, including integrity?? Gen(1:15) And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so." Gen(1:16) And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. You say the atmosphere became transparent to let the sun and moon and stars be seen. I presume you interpret this to be so, because if you did not, Genesis says right here God made the sun and moon and stars at this point (Gen 1:14-16). and science shows you don't get the creation of a physical universe with stars and planet earth in one go. You go on to list the rest of Genesis as an accurate reflection of how the universe and life on earth matches perfectly the astronomical and archaeological record, even though it obviously does no such thing. You cannot match science with Genesis it won't work. Science shows reasons, physical observable and comparative, whilst Genesis is a mythical story. You are trying to say science proves reptiles after birds as Genesis says when science and evolution says the record is that birds evolved from reptiles . You are trying to say science proves both fish and birds were created at the same time - as Genesis states, when science and evolution says the record is that fish came into existence long before the first birds do. You are trying to say science proves atmosphere was created before plants were created - as Genesis states, when science and evolution says plant life is essential for an atmosphere. You are trying to say science proves marine life was created all at once - as Genesis states, when science and evolution says marine life developed gradually. It has nothing to do with things getting weird shoeshine, it has everything to do with the reasonable examination of a story too far fetched to be even plausible. You want the meaning of the word days in Genesis to be any thing from 24 hours or billions of years depending on the verse, in a vain attempt to contort it into some kind of sense, which of course does no such thing. Genesis stated 6 DAYS for the creation of everything. Otherwise the 7th day God rested could well be a period of 1 billion years. Handy for the indolent, but useless for any practical purposes of explanation. You may not agree with the scientific evidence, and prefer the Glory Be version of the Holy Babble, fair enough, but to say science matches Genesis exactly, is not weird - as reasonable inquiry shows - but just plain bollocks.
Thx. I've enjoyed the discussion and found it very challenging. You are very good by the way at seeing what is behind the person's words and thinking of any assumed inferences. I can't keep up with you in that sense. As far as trading, I have been staying out of the market - I didn't trust my systems in the current environment. After today though, I may change my mind. We'll see how things close today. Hope things are truly juicy... Here's something we can both say: The universe rocks! And in your own words: peace, SSB