Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Post Volume: Total: 918,055 Year: 5,312/9,624 Month: 337/323 Week: 181/160 Day: 17/38 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Best evidence for Creation
ICANT
Member (Idle past 133 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 76 of 176 (477347)
08-01-2008 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by cavediver
08-01-2008 9:31 AM


Re: no sense whatsoever
cavediver writes:
ICANT writes:
So 'IF' the universe had a beginning as per Hawking and Peebles, It had to be brought into existence from some thing that was in existence by some method.
How the hell does this follow from anything of what you wrote above it???
You informed me outside help could not exist in an absence of any thing. Message 49.
That would mean that no thing could exist in an absence of any thing.
The universe is made of energy and mass. These are some things.
Energy and mass could not exist in an absence of any thing.
Therefore 'IF' the universe had a beginning/origin, it had to be created/formed out of energy and mass which is some thing.
That some thing would have to be in existence some where for it to be formed into the present universe.
Therefore I make the statement: "So 'IF' the universe had a beginning as per Hawking and Peebles, It had to be brought into existence from some thing that was in existence by some method."
cavediver you know I do not believe the universe had a beginning 13.7 billion years ago.
I believe the universe has always existed in some form just not the form we see it today.
I am only arguing the point that 'IF' the universe had a beginning/origin it had to be created/formed:
ex nihilo out of no thing which you say outside help could not exist there, which means no thing could exist there.
or
from some thing already in existence.
Either way it had to be created/formed IF it had a beginning.
So if the universe had a beginning it had to be created you pick the way it was created.
We are talking about what takes place between T=0 and T=10-43 as being the beginning aren't we?
You have told me something existed at T=0.
You have also told me that from that something the universe existed at T=10-43.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by cavediver, posted 08-01-2008 9:31 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by cavediver, posted 08-01-2008 3:57 PM ICANT has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 5065 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 77 of 176 (477357)
08-01-2008 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by jamison
07-31-2008 9:00 PM


Identity?
Yes, do we know who did the creating?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by jamison, posted 07-31-2008 9:00 PM jamison has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by ICANT, posted 08-01-2008 1:40 PM Brian has not replied
 Message 87 by jamison, posted 08-02-2008 10:16 PM Brian has not replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 133 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 78 of 176 (477362)
08-01-2008 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Brian
08-01-2008 12:43 PM


Re-Identity
Brian writes:
Yes, do we know who did the creating?
No, 'we' don't.
I think I do but I could be wrong, Bluejay could be right.
God Bless,
Edited by ICANT, : spelling

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Brian, posted 08-01-2008 12:43 PM Brian has not replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 133 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 79 of 176 (477367)
08-01-2008 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by bluegenes
08-01-2008 10:23 AM


Re: No evidence so far.
bluegenes writes:
To summarise, there's no real evidence for creationism been given at all. Some pseudo philosophical ramblings and a couple of jokes about fossils, and that's it. All those decades of "creation science" for nothing?
Did I miss something in the OP?
Brian did state in the OP:
What I would like to discuss here is the evidence FOR creation.
Brian did say: "evidence FOR creation".
creation from Message 73
Noun
1. a creating or being created
2. something brought into existence or created
Brian did not specify creation of what. But I assumed he was referring to the universe as he mentioned the Evo/Creo debate.
I presented evidence from Hawking that the universe did not always exist but had a beginning.
So Hawking believes in creation but he found a way to eliminate the need for God in the process. He came up with Imaginary time.
I also presented evidence where Peebles mentions a beginning.
The evidence indicates the universe had a beginning.
If it had a beginning that means it came into existence which is creation.
If it came into existence it could only do so in 1 of 2 ways.
It came into existence ex nihilo. Created out of no thing.
This requires a God of some kind.
OR
It came into existence out of some thing that was already in existence.
This requires existence.
This is my choice)
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by bluegenes, posted 08-01-2008 10:23 AM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by rueh, posted 08-01-2008 3:31 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 82 by cavediver, posted 08-01-2008 3:58 PM ICANT has replied

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 3767 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 80 of 176 (477371)
08-01-2008 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by ICANT
08-01-2008 3:09 PM


Re: No evidence so far.
What you have failed to do is present any actual evidence. You have stated a philosophy but that is not evidence for anything.
Icant writes:
I also presented evidence where Peebles mentions a beginning.
That is not evidence.
Icant writes:
If it came into existence it could only do so in 1 of 2 ways.
False. There is a myriad of possible ways.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by ICANT, posted 08-01-2008 3:09 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by ICANT, posted 08-01-2008 8:37 PM rueh has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3749 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 81 of 176 (477376)
08-01-2008 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by ICANT
08-01-2008 10:54 AM


Re: no sense whatsoever
Therefore 'IF' the universe had a beginning/origin, it had to be created/formed out of energy and mass which is some thing.
It did not have to be created at all...
"So 'IF' the universe had a beginning as per Hawking and Peebles, It had to be brought into existence from some thing that was in existence by some method."
And this is nonsense. You have made no such demonstration that "it had to be brought into existence".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by ICANT, posted 08-01-2008 10:54 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by ICANT, posted 08-01-2008 8:33 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3749 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 82 of 176 (477378)
08-01-2008 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by ICANT
08-01-2008 3:09 PM


Re: No evidence so far.
If it had a beginning that means it came into existence
No, it does not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by ICANT, posted 08-01-2008 3:09 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by ICANT, posted 08-01-2008 5:43 PM cavediver has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 133 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 83 of 176 (477387)
08-01-2008 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by cavediver
08-01-2008 3:58 PM


Re: No evidence so far.
cavediver writes:
ICANT writes:
If it had a beginning that means it came into existence
No, it does not.
Where do you get that definition of beginning?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by cavediver, posted 08-01-2008 3:58 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by cavediver, posted 08-03-2008 7:29 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 133 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 84 of 176 (477397)
08-01-2008 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by cavediver
08-01-2008 3:57 PM


Re: no sense whatsoever
cavediver writes:
ICANT writes:
"So 'IF' the universe had a beginning as per Hawking and Peebles, It had to be brought into existence from some thing that was in existence by some method."
This is where this quote originally came from in Message 73 in context.
ICANT writes:
creation = something created, brought into existence.
Universe had a beginning = origin.
Creation = point something brought into existence.
You informed me that no thing not even 'outside help' could exist in an 'absence of any thing'. In Re: no sense whatsoever (Message 49)
So 'IF' the universe had a beginning as per Hawking and Peebles, It had to be brought into existence from some thing that was in existence by some method.
cavediver writes:
And this is nonsense. You have made no such demonstration that "it had to be brought into existence".
Here Hawking says:
quote:
All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted.
Hawking said the evidence indicated the universe did not always exist.
Was Hawking wrong? Yes/No
Hawking said it had a beginning about 15 billion years ago.
Was Hawking wrong. Yes/No
Hawking said this is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology.
Was Hawking wrong. Yes/No
Hawking said it is now taken for granted.
Was Hawking wrong. Yes/No
If the universe did not always exist but now it does exist it had to come into existence.
To come into existence it had to be created/formed ex nihilo. (Out of an absence of any thing)
OR
It had to be created/formed from material that was already in existence.
You informed me that no thing not even 'outside help' could exist in an 'absence of any thing'. In Message 49
Thus my statement you keep having such a problem with.
So 'IF' the universe had a beginning as per Hawking and Peebles, It had to be brought into existence from some thing that was in existence by some method.
The above evidence is the best evidence for creation.
Creation = some thing that did not exist beginning to exist.
If Hawking was wrong and you have a better answer now would be a good time to present it.
God Bless.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by cavediver, posted 08-01-2008 3:57 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by cavediver, posted 08-03-2008 7:33 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 133 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 85 of 176 (477398)
08-01-2008 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by rueh
08-01-2008 3:31 PM


Re: No evidence so far.
rueh writes:
What you have failed to do is present any actual evidence. You have stated a philosophy but that is not evidence for anything.
Icant writes:
I also presented evidence where Peebles mentions a beginning.
That is not evidence.
Since you have a hard time reading a thread I will present the evidence again just for you.
To quote P.J.E. Peebles' Principles of Physical Cosmology page 6:
This is roughly 13.7 billion years ago. However it does not start at the beginning of the universe.
For the Hawking evidence you can check Message 84
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by rueh, posted 08-01-2008 3:31 PM rueh has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by onifre, posted 08-03-2008 12:38 PM ICANT has replied

  
Mayhem
Junior Member (Idle past 5823 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 08-02-2008


Message 86 of 176 (477438)
08-02-2008 8:12 AM


As entertaining as the philosophical debate has been... I would like to point out that the one bit of actual "evidence" presented as of yet (which, if it was true would only be evidence against evolution, not FOR creation... but details ) has been laregly ignored. Probably for good reason... but still, given that it's the only thing that might actaully qualify as evidence for or against anything, it at least deserves to be properly torn apart.
The orignal picture proviede is a bit fuzzy, so here's a link to a better one to begin with.
"Alvis Delk #fundie"
The first thing that I would like to point out about the prints is that when you look closely at them... they cut through the layers of strata that make up the rock. Genuine Fossil footprints rarely, if ever, do this. When a foot print is put down, it's done in soft earth, and whent that earth hardens and fossilizes, the strata it forms into follows the shape of the footprint.
Chedk for yourself. Go to google image search, take a nice hard look at any close view of a fossil footprint you can find. You will not be able to see any layering in the sides of the depression.
For example...
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/.../2375378241_f5a37177c5.jpg
As deep as this example is... there is no cutting through layers of strata, the layers of strata follow the shape of the print.
Secondly. They're all wrong. The "Dinosaur" footprint looks like it was made by a childs toy. No deformation at all, and no evidence of the variations in pressure that a real foot would have. And the fact that it's so deep, yet there are no scuff marks in front or behind it... it just went straight in. Not a natural step.
The other prints worse. At least with the dino print he has an excuse, he can't comparre it to a living one. The toes are splayed unaturally, the big toe is suspicously deep compared to the rest. It once again looks to deliberate. No sign of heel to toe motion that you get in any human footprint that was not deliberately and carefully placed. There is no arch to speak of... it only looks superfically like a human footprint once you actually compare it to a real one.
Page not found – BellSouth Personal Web Pages
Personal opinion... it's an obvious hoax done by someone desperate for money to pay for his medical expenses.
Of course, mine is an untrained, amatuer opinion. So you can choose to ignore it if you wish. Of course, no-one who actually has had training has examined the thing yet to analyze it scientifically. And given it current resting place and owner, it may never get properly analyzed.
Until it does however. It fails to be anything other than a tourist attraction. Mildly amusing, but about as likely to be real as a Jackalope.

  
jamison
Junior Member (Idle past 5822 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 07-30-2008


Message 87 of 176 (477461)
08-02-2008 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Brian
08-01-2008 12:43 PM


What?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Brian, posted 08-01-2008 12:43 PM Brian has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3749 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 88 of 176 (477467)
08-03-2008 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by ICANT
08-01-2008 5:43 PM


Re: No evidence so far.
Where do you get that definition of beginning?
To 'come into existence' requires some sense of time or causal structure. The 'beginning' we talk of is at a point without causal structure - therefore you cannot talk of something 'coming into existence'. There is no before, no 'nothing then something' - there is simply existence, which has an earliest time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by ICANT, posted 08-01-2008 5:43 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2008 1:47 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3749 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 89 of 176 (477468)
08-03-2008 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by ICANT
08-01-2008 8:33 PM


Re: no sense whatsoever
Hawking said the evidence indicated the universe did not always exist.
Was Hawking wrong? Yes/No
I would argue that some there is some slight evidence (from theoretical phsyics) to suggest that perhaps the Universe existed prior to the Big Bang. He would agree with that.
Hawking said it had a beginning about 15 billion years ago.
Was Hawking wrong. Yes/No
We don't know yet.
Hawking said this is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology.
Was Hawking wrong. Yes/No
Probably? Possibly...
Hawking said it is now taken for granted.
Was Hawking wrong. Yes/No
By many, yes. By all, no.
If the universe did not always exist but now it does exist it had to come into existence.
Incorrect

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by ICANT, posted 08-01-2008 8:33 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Phat, posted 08-03-2008 8:08 AM cavediver has replied
 Message 95 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2008 2:20 PM cavediver has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18418
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003


Message 90 of 176 (477469)
08-03-2008 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by cavediver
08-03-2008 7:33 AM


Re: no sense whatsoever
If the universe always existed, that seems to set better with folks than asking if God always existed. Folks usually ask "Who created God?" but never seem to mind the fact that a singularity was sitting around for eternity until the explosion.
Of course, some theorists see an oscillating universe with endless expansion/contraction phases. The human brain is ever questioning and ever doubting.
Cavediver, if the universe had no beginning, what is the purpose of our lives if we may someday be compressed back into a singularity?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by cavediver, posted 08-03-2008 7:33 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by cavediver, posted 08-03-2008 9:45 AM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024