Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 5:58 AM
20 online now:
AZPaul3, Pressie (2 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,794 Year: 9,830/19,786 Month: 2,252/2,119 Week: 288/724 Day: 13/114 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4Next
Author Topic:   rational people only (no yecs)
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

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1995 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 32 of 46 (11997)
06-23-2002 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by TrueCreation
06-22-2002 10:48 PM


I'm also going to be breathing compressed air for the next few days and getting my annual N2 saturation, except in the Florida panhandle. Should be back Thursday.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by TrueCreation, posted 06-22-2002 10:48 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1995 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 33 of 46 (11998)
06-23-2002 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by jennacreationist
06-22-2002 8:49 PM


[QUOTE][b]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[/QUOTE]

[/b]

That would be feasible if tic tacs were made of silicon and copper and were capable of reproduction and had a system of transmitting genetic information across generations.

[QUOTE][b]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[/QUOTE]

[/b]

No, the ToA is positing that early life came from non-living chemical processes. What life function is not reducible to chemistry and physics? Unless you can find one it, the theory is completely plausible. What is a cell but millions of chemical reactions occuring at once?

[QUOTE][b]The Bible is full of Science and I know that it can be proven that their is a heavenly Father by using the scientific method.
[/QUOTE]

[/b]

No, that is impossible because you would have a religion without faith. What would be the point of that? Hmm, perhaps you want to "prove" (somehow) that the Christian God is real so that all souls will have to join the faith and thus, in theory, be saved from hellfire. But you would only destroy free will.

That is something you really should leave alone. You will not succeed: (1) Because thousands of people before you have tried it already (2) if God wanted his existance proven He would just show up one day and tell us He was real (3) there is no religion without faith (4) you cannot mix science and religion, they are mutually exclusive (5) God already has the Holy Ghost to witness for Him (6) you are attempting to interfere with a divine plan which existed in the beginning, eons before you were born (7) no matter how good your 'proof' will always be the work of man and therefore unworthy to truly fulfill what you want it to (8) all the 'science' of the Bible is contingent upon the flawed interpretation of man which was done in hindsight anyway (9) such a proof contradicts the Christian doctrine of Free Will (10) Muslims have already tried finding science in the Qur'an and Christians don't take them seriously for the same reasons most of us don't take you seriously.

By the way, my thumbs-down is to the title of this thread.

[This message has been edited by gene90, 06-23-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jennacreationist, posted 06-22-2002 8:49 PM jennacreationist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by jennacreationist, posted 06-24-2002 9:59 PM gene90 has responded

  
jennacreationist
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 46 (12107)
06-24-2002 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by gene90
06-23-2002 7:24 PM


So Gene we meet again.LOL.
Well I beleive according to the Bible God did make several "trips" to the earth.
According to the Bible He walked in the Garden with Adam and Eve until they faltered, He approached Mosses on the Mountain in the bush, He even wrestled with Isaac and came to eart in the form of a man better known as Jesus. And to top that off their was a man in the Old Teastament who had died and requested of Lazarus to let his family know"there is in fact a God please tell them, appear to them so they might believe " to which the reply was something to the effects of , even if I appear to them and proclaim His glory it still wouldn't be enough.You either beleive or you don't.
How many eyewitnesses do we need?
Be honest, even if God Himself approached you wouldn't you somehow rationalize him away?
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...
Science and religion are almost one AND the same!(you do have to have faith in evolution don't you?)
That is why I chose Biology as a major. So I could revel in the miracles of life.
That is also why the Bible proclaims "broad is the path to destruction and narrow is the gate to eternal life"
Because you are right we ALL have Free will.
My points don't take away from that.
I'm not trying to "make " you a Christian.
That is not even in my realm of capabilities.
I know that is a Personal choice.
I'm not trying to take away your personal choices.
But why should science discount theories that can't be disproved
and why do I as a "fellow scientific beleiver and enjoyer" have to be discounted in the scientific community because "I'm not an evolutionist"
That is boxing science in and I don't know if you are aware that quite a few respected scientists are in fact Creationists and Christians.
Even the man who made up the genius phylum etc. chart was a Christian...
Don't take this the wrong way because I'm not comming off offended(completely)LOL and my heart is in the right place, it's just you can't disprove Creation, at least not all together and therefore it should be fully looked at and treated with the utmost respect.
Jenn(still)acreationist
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by gene90, posted 06-23-2002 7:24 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by gene90, posted 06-28-2002 9:09 PM jennacreationist has responded
 Message 41 by TrueCreation, posted 06-29-2002 10:24 PM jennacreationist has not yet responded

  
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 46 (12165)
06-25-2002 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by quicksink
03-08-2002 11:37 PM


If your apparent susceptability to fantasy, as indicated by your notions about ultimate origins and destiny (evolution-driven "chapters" in cosmic history), is an indication of your inability to accept truth that you find unpalatable, it is no wonder that you don't want to be confronted by biblical "yecs."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by quicksink, posted 03-08-2002 11:37 PM quicksink has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1995 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 36 of 46 (12363)
06-28-2002 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by jennacreationist
06-24-2002 9:59 PM


[QUOTE][b]Be honest, even if God Himself approached you wouldn't you somehow rationalize him away?[/QUOTE]

[/b]

No but you probably would. I am a member of a well-known but poorly understood Christian congregation that believes in modern-day revelation. I believe that God Himself descended to the Earth in the earlier part of the 19th century and continued to do so for some time thereafter to restore His Church and may do so again anytime he pleases, to anyone he pleases. But most other churches reject modern-day prophecy and revelation. No more prophets, God doesn't talk to people anymore.

Sooo...as far as accusing each other of being stiffnecked goes I think I have the higher ground.

However, as I doubt you are a member of the same Church I am, that means that you have either not been exposed to our doctrine, or rejected it outright, or both. That means you must have "rationalized" it away.

[QUOTE][b]Rationalize His creation into chemicals and matter[/QUOTE]

[/b]

Actually you seem to be talking about ToA and the Big Bang.

[QUOTE][b]Science and religion are almost one AND the same![/QUOTE]

[/b]

Religion depends on faith. Normally, to receive a divine manifestation to confirm your belief, you have to already have a high level of faith. You pay for it upfront in what you already believe and God pays you back with a little interest.

Science is the opposite, it is opposed to faith and instead tries to find what works, with the assumption that some better idea might come along to replace what works right now.

[QUOTE][b](you do have to have faith in evolution don't you?)[/QUOTE]

[/b]

Nope. It's always being tested. To the extent we rely upon is the same extent to which it has worked in the past. I don't have 'faith' in it any more than I have 'faith' in gravity or faith in the Heisenberg model of the hydrogen atom. It works. It is parsimonious with evidence. But it is incomplete and there may be exceptions to the current rules of how it works. Plus there might be other factors we don't know about yet. All of these will be dealt with in due time, but what I can say, at least now, is that it works and I don't see you putting anything better or more useful on the table.

Results first, acceptance later.

[QUOTE][b]But why should science discount theories that can't be disproved
and why do I as a "fellow scientific beleiver and enjoyer" have to be discounted in the scientific community because "I'm not an evolutionist"

[QUOTE][B]That is boxing science in and I don't know if you are aware that quite a few respected scientists are in fact Creationists and Christians.[/QUOTE]

[/b]

I know of people who claim degrees (some degrees are real and some are fake) in science that claim to be 'doing' Creationist science but I don't know I would go so far to call them "respected". Creationist articles almost never appear in the journals and most Creationists (like recently-retired Duane Gish, who has a real degree in biochem from an ivy-league school) don't publish in the journals and have generally done nothing that even resembles science since getting their Ph.Ds. To make things worse, many Creationists lie repeatedly even after being corrected (Gish) or fudge other people's data beyond recognition (Setterfield). Then of course you have the pretenders
(Hovind) that confuse everything and even get censured by other Creationists. Dr. Robert Gentry made the best effort in getting Creationism into the mainstream with Po haloes in minerals. The problem is that he is a physicist and short-sided geology in his papers, and his arguments (carefully edited to show no references to a young Earth, only "instant formation" of a mineral) did not survive long. AiG keeps a list of "Creationist scientists" they are affiliated with. Interesting enough the list includes a plastic surgeon and several psychologists. Very few geologists and biologists are present in the list. In fact, these two fields are the least sympathetic to Creationism. Most highly educated creationists are engineers and there are comparatively very few natural scientists amongst their ranks. (We might mention Behe but he's not a young-Earther to my knowledge and I'm not aware of him publishing his work in the journals).

[QUOTE][b]Even the man who made up the genius phylum etc. chart was a Christian...[/QUOTE]

[/b]

A lot of scientists are Christians. That does not mean a lot of scientists are Creationists.

[/QUOTE]

[b]Don't take this the wrong way because I'm not comming off offended(completely)LOL and my heart is in the right place, it's just you can't disprove Creation, at least not all together and therefore it should be fully looked at and treated with the utmost respect.[/QUOTE]

[/b]

But can it be disproven?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by jennacreationist, posted 06-24-2002 9:59 PM jennacreationist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by jennacreationist, posted 06-29-2002 5:45 PM gene90 has responded

  
jennacreationist
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 46 (12386)
06-29-2002 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by gene90
06-28-2002 9:09 PM


ok Gene I will give this my best shot....
I am only guessing mind you but are you a Latter Day Saint (aka) Mormon?
If so you are wrong I know your doctorine very well , some of my good friends are Mormon and I also took some of the classes.
All of that aside, if you are , yes there are certain things I don't agree with, but as far as not beleiving that God doesn't reveal himself today... actually I do beleive that He speaks to people today.
So I guess I'm not as stiff necked as you might think.
Probably if you had an actuall sit down conversation with me in "real" time you would probably be surprised.
But in this type of a back and forth format it's hard for me to always convey everything I would like to say.
It's not like you can inflect your tone of voice through the computer .
I as a Christian have a personal relationship with God.
I am always looking and searching and questionning.
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.
They are such a stretch and no I obviously cannot speak things into existance LOL. But I don't agree with your usage of an egg and seed as comparisons to evolution.
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?
Among other things.
Any way Gene just because I may not agree with you doesn't mean I think I'm better in any way...
Just so you know.
Jennacreationist.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by gene90, posted 06-28-2002 9:09 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Joe Meert, posted 06-29-2002 7:17 PM jennacreationist has not yet responded
 Message 40 by TrueCreation, posted 06-29-2002 10:11 PM jennacreationist has not yet responded
 Message 42 by gene90, posted 06-30-2002 9:38 AM jennacreationist has not yet responded

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3852 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 38 of 46 (12387)
06-29-2002 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by jennacreationist
06-29-2002 5:45 PM


[QUOTE]I as a Christian have a personal relationship with God.
Where is the interspecie mating?
Among other things.
Any way Gene just because I may not agree with you doesn't mean I think I'm better in any way...
Just so you know.
Jennacreationist.[/B][/QUOTE]

JM: Others have a personal relationship with Allah. Pantheists commune with God. Most religions lead naturally to a 'personal conviction' of correctness, but that does not prove anything other than you have a strong faith. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with faith, but to assert that because you truly believe that something is real and personal does not make it so. Religious conviction aside, Christianity does not make a requirement that evolution is false and that science is to be mistrusted. The bible says God created and does not say how. An all powerful God is not limited by your personal perception of the data. Evolution does not require 'interspecie mating'. Since you claim to be a biologist of sorts, I would love to see where you cribbed that definition of evolution. What has unambiguously been observed are species being isolated, breeding, and through time producing a separate species incapable of mating with its progenitors. Evolution is no more anti-God than is gravity. People who demand that you abandon scientific findings in favor of their interpretation of scripture or who ask you to abandon rational thought in favor of scripture are leading you down the slippery slope of cultism.

Cheers

Joe Meert


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 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

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1995 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 42 of 46 (12403)
06-30-2002 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by jennacreationist
06-29-2002 5:45 PM


[QUOTE][b]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 .
[/QUOTE]

[/b]

But some of them are, like Cosmic Background Radiation. There are a few variables in the theory that still need to be better defined so there is not a perfect match. But so far as I know the model works very well. Maybe you can better inform me if I'm wrong.

[QUOTE][b]But I don't agree with your usage of an egg and seed as comparisons to evolution. They have the same genetic makeup in the seed and egg stages as they will in their adult stages.
[/QUOTE]

[/b]

That is true but I don't see how it looks more like instant creation through divine fiat. At best it looks like theistic evolution.

[QUOTE][b]Where is the interspecie mating?[/QUOTE]

[/b]

This is a very interesting question. One definition of species is that individuals of that species cannot mate with similar species and produce fertile offspring. So as long as that definition of species is used, interspecies mating should be impossible. But there are exceptions in closely related species. Natural hybrids of cichlid fishes in Lake Victoria are fairly common, especially where the water is clouded by sediment, making it difficult for the fish to determine the species of a perspective mate. According to a field guide I have, it is also common to see hybrids of two species of marine angelfish, and I remember reading a news segment in a journal this spring about mating across two species of bird in the Galapagos. The article was talking about gene flow between the species, so we know for sure that the offspring are fertile.

So while it is usually an accident, interspecies mating is quite common...in similar/closely related species.


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

  
Rationalist
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 46 (15538)
08-16-2002 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Joe Meert
03-08-2002 11:51 PM


This is not quite on topic.. but I thought it was interesting. In a post a few pages back quicksink and Joe Meert said the following:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by quicksink:
if the laws of physics were created at the moment of the big bang, wouldn't that mean that all time was decided from that point forward? if you think about it, the laws of physics have total control over every inanimate object- they move it- they make it- they destroy it.

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

JM: Well, not necessarily. The 'laws of physics' may have existed....well I hate to use the word but here goes...before the Big bang. In other words, our Universe may have come about simply because these 'laws' are able to produce a stable universe. Your assertion regarding time is absolutely correct. Time began at the instant of the BB (hence my reluctance to use the word 'before' earlier). As far as how we measure 'time' you are also both correct and incorrect. We (here on earth) define time in terms of our reference frame. The convenient measure is one revolution around the Sun. We could therefore redefine time as we like and Einstein indicated that all time is dependent upon the reference frame of the observer.....


The basic gist of a discussion when talking to the average person about the Big Bang, and the non-existence of time before it, is their utter incredulity of the time not existing at some point. I think that shows a bit of parochialism in the sense that we find it difficult to think of time in any other sense than how we experience it now.

I think it would be sort of fun to explore alternate models of time. Perhaps asynchronous cellular time, manifold or partitioned time, fractal time, perhaps multi-axis time. I think offhand that there must be quite a few mathematical models of time that could not be fit into a single linear time axis, and would make for a pretty interesting set of dynamics.

[This message has been edited by Rationalist, 08-16-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Joe Meert, posted 03-08-2002 11:51 PM Joe Meert has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Mike Holland, posted 10-17-2002 4:52 AM Rationalist has not yet responded

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 3325 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 44 of 46 (16791)
09-06-2002 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by quicksink
03-09-2002 7:04 AM


I do not concider myself as a "Creationist", as I do not believe in Genesis 1 quite as literally as they do, and I do believe in the Big Bang. My question is just this: If you do not want any replies from creationists, the why the heck do you post your letter on a site called "Creation versus Evolution"??? Surely there are scientific discussion sites out there that is not quite so inviting for creationists?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by quicksink, posted 03-09-2002 7:04 AM quicksink has not yet responded

    
Mike Holland
Member
Posts: 168
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 45 of 46 (20082)
10-17-2002 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Rationalist
08-16-2002 1:56 PM


Rationalist, I have been studying these problems for the past 40 years, so do not regard myself as the average guy in this subject. But I find it impossible to imagine time going on (or back) forever, and I find it equally impossible to imagine a beginning to time, which has no time before it. So when anyone asks what was before the Big Bang, I go outside and water the garden, or something.
Mike Holland.
(OK, so this does not contribute anything to the discussion).
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Rationalist, posted 08-16-2002 1:56 PM Rationalist has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
4Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019