Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-17-2019 10:43 AM
30 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,898 Year: 8,934/19,786 Month: 1,356/2,119 Week: 116/576 Day: 17/99 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   rational people only (no yecs)
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 46 (6362)
03-09-2002 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by quicksink
03-09-2002 12:15 AM


"they were created randomly during the big bang, let us agree on that. they did not exist in a vacuum."
--Actually the laws of physics are still attained and are fully operational in a vacuum, there is only nothing for these principals to govern. These principals and attributes on the governing of matter and energy does not just collapse when there is no longer something for it to govern.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by quicksink, posted 03-09-2002 12:15 AM quicksink has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by KingPenguin, posted 03-09-2002 1:57 AM TrueCreation has responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 46 (6366)
03-09-2002 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by KingPenguin
03-09-2002 1:57 AM


"psssssst TC i dont think were allowed in here. "
--Oops!
I guess I saw 'rational people only' and forgot the rest, silly me.
--I just couldn't help myself that everyone seemed to be missing such an obvious point.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by KingPenguin, posted 03-09-2002 1:57 AM KingPenguin has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 46 (6405)
03-09-2002 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by quicksink
03-09-2002 3:45 AM


"there are plenty of people who believe that the laws of physics were created randomly during the big bang. but then again, the big bang never happened."
--As you can observe from my post, this is not what I was addressing, ie, the point of the big bang. However, I was addressing your point that 'they did not exist in a vaccume' as it's support.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by quicksink, posted 03-09-2002 3:45 AM quicksink has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 46 (6407)
03-09-2002 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by quicksink
03-09-2002 10:56 AM


"BTW- i have now done research on the special theory of relativity and understand it completely."
--I have seen books in university libraries thousands of pages in length, and even in some cases, series of books on the subject (though usually also encompassing quantum mechanics). If my interest in quantum force or cosmology and cosmogeny, I would perhaps take the time to read them.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by quicksink, posted 03-09-2002 10:56 AM quicksink has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by quicksink, posted 03-09-2002 11:51 AM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 46 (11972)
06-22-2002 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by jennacreationist
06-22-2002 8:49 PM


I'll give you my comments when I return.

--Just to bump the board, I'll be gone for the next week down in the Florida keys. I'll be doing some scuba diving and what-not with some of my friends and family. I might get the chance to bring a book as well so I'll do some reading. I'll get back to the unanswered post when I get back, and If its been 8 days+ give me a bump.

Cheers till then!
--The one and only -http://www.evcforum.net/Images/Smilies/wink.gif[/IMG]
P.S.S. --> JC - Don't get discouraged too fast after you hear the boards comments on your posts! Absorb, ponder on, discuss, and draw conclusions from it. {Glad to have you join us, enjoy percy's forum}

------------------

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-22-2002]

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-22-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jennacreationist, posted 06-22-2002 8:49 PM jennacreationist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by gene90, posted 06-23-2002 7:05 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 46 (12389)
06-29-2002 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by jennacreationist
06-22-2002 8:49 PM


"I actually understand your reasonning, but then doesn't your theory leave room for God?"
--If it suits your subjective speculation (which could possibly be your opinion on objective observation), so be it. That is great, just watch the tenability of what you include in your scientific conclusions.

"because if "we are evolving into something other than what we are currently" then isn't it feasible to have a being a Creator that is more "evolved" and far more intelligent than those of us who are on earth?"
--I think you are trying to mix oil with water here. The first segment of your sentence seemingly indicates a process of biologic developmental Evolution. The second which you seem to want to branch off from a phylogenetic perspective in biology doesn't hold the same evolutionary concept. Unless you would like to make a proffer on your theory of evolutionary decent with modification from an initial point of diverging the supernatural and natural populations. Well, I'd like to hear that one.
--On a more subjective but viable note, I hold the belief along with many others in this forum that God, being God, would happen to be a bit more intelligent than any earthly organism. I think that is rational.

"See it is not so far fetched after all."
--I don't think anyone here is arguing a case against the existence of God, let alone which God.

"I don't understand why no one would believe me if I said that my computer came from a matter that randomly and over time created itself and evolved from a tic tac, something that is also inanimate, yet people of such great and wonderfully God given intelligence truly want to believe that any living matter even a microbe came from a non-living non source of nothing to form our beautiful land, seas, skies let alone an actual functioning breathing without thinking human being."
--Again, no one is arguing against the existence of God, and there are some point of views which may even say that God guided the evolutionary process.

"The Bible is full of Science[1] and I know that it can be proven that their is a heavenly Father by using the scientific method.[2]"
--[1] - The bible really isn't full of 'science' per se, but to argue that the bible is full of applied science in documented observation may be argued for.
--[2] - This cannot be 'proven', this word is readily underestimated and misused frequently, but it is important to be corrective of your word usage and assertions. Also, by using the scientific method you are automatically confined to the realm of the observable, analogous to the natural. Knowing this, I think that it would be difficult to prove or to show as a fact, supernatural characteristics.

"I am a Biology major by brain and a Christian by heart. They can go hand in hand , not opposing beliefs but one and the same."
--Something like that, yes. :\

--Its great to get back to the board, I feel refreshed from all that previous brain work.

------------------

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-30-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jennacreationist, posted 06-22-2002 8:49 PM jennacreationist has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 46 (12390)
06-29-2002 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by jennacreationist
06-29-2002 5:45 PM


"When I look at the evidence of evolution I just see the evidence different.
And it's not even neccessarily because I am biased by my faith it's because of certain fullfiments that the Big bang and all of the theories used to explain how it all came to be, are not met . For me the answers are not satisfactory . And I am not the only one."
--Just make sure that you are aware that the process of biological Evolution, abiogenesis, and stellar evolution/inflation theory/Big Bang are different developmental processes and may not necessarily be coherent from person to person or scientist to scientist.

"They have the same genetic makeup in the seed and egg stages as they will in their adult stages.
That basis does not change.
That is some of the reason I have a problem with evolution.
Where is the interspecie mating?"
--I'm no biologist, thought If mind serves me well mutations occurring in gamete formation are contributions toward speciation. Given vast periods of time, these changes are going to have to add up to something. For the Evo's sake, Natural selection had better be quite beneficially intrinsic as it pertains to preserving diversifying species for this length of time. Also, interspecies happens all the time, even extraspecies mating happens quite frequently though rare in the wild.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by jennacreationist, posted 06-29-2002 5:45 PM jennacreationist has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 46 (12391)
06-29-2002 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by jennacreationist
06-24-2002 9:59 PM


"After all that's exactly what evolution does.
Rationalize His creation into chemicals and matter "creating itself from nothing to form what we have today~
No one disagrees that matter and atoms do not exist the argument stems from how it got here..."
--You should read my last post, Evolution technically is not in the same boat as abiogenesis, as well as your last statement seemingly indicating a reference to the Big bang. They just arent the same.

"Science and religion are almost one AND the same!(you do have to have faith in evolution don't you?)"
--I would disagree with Gene that you don't have to have any. You of course have to have some degree of faith in Evolution. This also would be forced to consider a factor of what it is to believe about evolution and how much confidence there is to be applied on its veracity. Gene of course would argue that this degree of 'faith' is minute and therefore rendered futile.

"But why should science discount theories that can't be disproved"
--Be cause it is then pseudo-science. Though this of course depends on where you are going to take your theory, is it a fact, a probability, or possibility? You stated that you can prove the creator by using the scientific method, however, the scientific method requires potential falsification. There's a brick wall in front of your face if you ask me. Making yourself futile peep holes isn't going to get you very far.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by jennacreationist, posted 06-24-2002 9:59 PM jennacreationist has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019