Proof Against Evolution

[sandy whitelinger]

"Life cannot come from non-life, that is a proven principle of science'

Then how did a supposed god arise from non-existence?

Life arising from non-life in the universe must follow the laws of the universe. God comes from a place that exists outside of this universe and is not subject to the same laws. This is also why asking how God began is irrelevent, ie. in a place where there is no time there is no beginning.

 

[Random]

Life arising from non-life in the universe must follow the laws of the universe. God comes from a place that exists outside of this universe and is not subject to the same laws. This is also why asking how God began is irrelevent, ie. in a place where there is no time there is no beginning.

Exactly. Life must and only can arise from pre-existing life, not non-living matter, so the premise of Abiogenesis is actually super-naturalistic if true. Your answer about the eternality of God is also correct.

 

[Yerda]

Exactly. Life must and only can arise from pre-existing life, not non-living matter, so the premise of Abiogenesis is actually super-naturalistic if true. Your answer about the eternality of God is also correct.

Define 'life'.

 

[stemann]

Life arising from non-life in the universe must follow the laws of the universe. God comes from a place that exists outside of this universe and is not subject to the same laws. This is also why asking how God began is irrelevent, ie. in a place where there is no time there is no beginning.

Life arising from non-life in the universe must follow the laws of the universe. The universe comes from a place that exists outside of this universe and is not subject to the same laws. This is also why asking how the universe began is irrelevant, ie. in a place where there is no time there is no beginning.

Feel free to explain why your paragraph is any more or less logical than mine.

 

[Random]

Define 'life'.

Life is the quintessential state of living organisms, matter that is subject to stimuli coupled with the ability to grow, reproduce and adapt. At least, that's the common non-metaphysical definition. Why do you ask?

 

[JerryL]

God comes from a place that exists outside of this universe and is not subject to the same laws. This is also why asking how God began is irrelevent, ie. in a place where there is no time there is no beginning.

Please prove that there is a place outside the universe, and that God is there, and that this place has no time.

Exactly. Life must and only can arise from pre-existing life, not non-living matter

Please prove this positive claim that life can only arise from pre-existing life.

Life is the quintessential state of living organisms, matter that is subject to stimuli coupled with the ability to grow, reproduce and adapt. At least, that's the common non-metaphysical definition. Why do you ask?

So fire is alive?

 

[universal_brother]

Life arising from non-life in the universe must follow the laws of the universe. The universe comes from a place that exists outside of this universe and is not subject to the same laws. This is also why asking how the universe began is irrelevant, ie. in a place where there is no time there is no beginning.

Feel free to explain why your paragraph is any more or less logical than mine.

But, because there is time, there is a beginning!
Universe is finite, so it has a beginning.

 

[JerryL]

But, because there is time, there is a beginning!
Universe is finite, so it has a beginning.

The surface of the Earth is finite in size. Where it the beginning of it?

 

[universal_brother]

The surface of the Earth is finite in size. Where it the beginning of it?

No, thats a silly question, it's not comparable to scientific data which is conclusive in it's own right.

For example, the hydrogen/helium composition within the stars & sun, amounts to a finite reaction! A finite supply fuel, an irreversible reaction. Stars have a beginning, and will have an end.

 

[d.]

God comes from a place that exists outside of this universe and is not subject to the same laws.

much in the same way that mxyzptlk comes from the 'fifth dimension' and therefore is not subject to the same physical laws as us. however, forcing him to utter the word 'kltpzyxm' - his own name backwards - forces him to return to his own dimension for at least 90 days.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Which Superman is adept at doing. (Thankfully for our universe!)

 

[universal_brother]

much in the same way that mxyzptlk comes from the 'fifth dimension' and therefore is not subject to the same physical laws as us. however, forcing him to utter the word 'kltpzyxm' - his own name backwards - forces him to return to his own dimension for at least 90 days.

:bonk:

 

[JerryL]

No, thats a silly question, it's not comparable to scientific data which is conclusive in it's own right.

No, questions are not comparable to data. One is an interrogative, the other is informative.

So let's look at things that are comparable:

Universe is finite, so it has a beginning. (said by you)
The Earth's surface is finite, so it has a beginning.
​

If "finite" = "has beginning", then you should be able to point me at the beginning of the Earth's surface. If "finite" != "has a beginning" then your statement (that the finite nature of the universe means it has a beginning) is false.

Which will you choose? Does finiteness mean there's a beginning or not?

For example, the hydrogen/helium composition within the stars & sun, amounts to a finite reaction! A finite supply fuel, an irreversible reaction. Stars have a beginning, and will have an end.

I agree that stars (balls of gas underoging fusion cause by their own gravity) have beginnings and endings in time. I don't agree that something being finite means that it neccessarily has a beginning.

Where is the beginning of the finite fuel supply?
Where is the beginning of the finite surface of the Earth?

Certainly to say that time is temporaly finite is an oxymoron.

Further, there's more exidence to support boundless time than bounded time, as timespace is one thing and bounded space would also be an oxymoron.

 

[Yerda]

Life is the quintessential state of living organisms, matter that is subject to stimuli coupled with the ability to grow, reproduce and adapt. At least, that's the common non-metaphysical definition. Why do you ask?

I was curious. Cheers.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Life arising from non-life in the universe must follow the laws of the universe. The universe comes from a place that exists outside of this universe and is not subject to the same laws. This is also why asking how the universe began is irrelevant, ie. in a place where there is no time there is no beginning.

Feel free to explain why your paragraph is any more or less logical than mine.

The universe began in this dimension at the beginning of time. God existed before the beginning of this universe and still exists extra dimensionally. The universe exists according to the rules and laws of this dimension.

 

[universal_brother]

No, questions are not comparable to data. One is an interrogative, the other is informative.








So let's look at things that are comparable:

Universe is finite, so it has a beginning. (said by you)
The Earth's surface is finite, so it has a beginning.







​

If "finite" = "has beginning", then you should be able to point me at the beginning of the Earth's surface. If "finite" != "has a beginning" then your statement (that the finite nature of the universe means it has a beginning) is false.

Which will you choose? Does finiteness mean there's a beginning or not?

I agree that stars (balls of gas underoging fusion cause by their own gravity) have beginnings and endings in time. I don't agree that something being finite means that it neccessarily has a beginning.

Please elaborate by example.

Where is the beginning of the finite fuel supply?

Before stars are formed there is just a molecular cloud complex, this in turn forms blobs or globules, which in turn collapses to form a circumstella disk. These regions are dense enough to collapse under their own weight. The protostar would then begin to undergo fusion, becoming a real star. The composition of fuel for fusion roughly begins at 90% Hydrogen, to 10% Helium, this would be the beginning of this finite fuel supply.

Where is the beginning of the finite surface of the Earth?

The Earth itself is finite, so shouldn't every material aspect of the Earth be too?

Certainly to say that time is temporaly finite is an oxymoron.

Time is only relative to the universe, is it not?
It only exists because the universe exists. Think about it.

Further, there's more exidence to support boundless time than bounded time, as timespace is one thing and bounded space would also be an oxymoron.

No. Time is relative to space, velocity, and even perception.
Without perception, time wouldn't exist.
Without velocity(of everything), time wouldn't exist.
And without space, or universe, time wouldn't exist.

There is more evidence to prove this to be the case,
than there being PROOF to the contrary, if any proof.

There has been numerous experiments too, that confirm this.

There are only theories that support an infinite space, no proof that I am aware of.

 

[logician]

"Without perception, time wouldn't exist"

One question to ponder is without perception, is there existence, on a cosmic scale, i.e. if no life exists to perceive, is there a multiverse ?

 

[stemann]

The universe began in this dimension at the beginning of time.

The Universe did not begin in this dimension: it is not encapsulated by the dimension, it is the dimension.

True, it began at the beginning of time- to say anything was 'before' the beginning of time would render the words used meaningless.

The universe exists according to the rules and laws of this dimension.

So the dimension is bigger than the Universe?

 

[JerryL]

God existed before the beginning of this universe

Definitionally impossible. There cannot be a "before time" as that would require time.

I don't agree that something being finite means that it neccessarily has a beginning.[/qoute]

Please elaborate by example.

I did. Twice for the same example. The surface of the Earth is finite in size but has no beginning nor end.

Before stars are formed there is just a molecular cloud complex, this in turn forms blobs or globules, which in turn collapses to form a circumstella disk. These regions are dense enough to collapse under their own weight. The protostar would then begin to undergo fusion, becoming a real star. The composition of fuel for fusion roughly begins at 90% Hydrogen, to 10% Helium, this would be the beginning of this finite fuel supply.

So you mean "finite" as in "came into existance, will go from existance". In that case, the universe is infinite, having no beginning nor end.

The Earth itself is finite, so shouldn't every material aspect of the Earth be too?

So where on the globe will I find the beginning of the Earth's surface?

Time is only relative to the universe, is it not?
It only exists because the universe exists. Think about it.

You keep equivocating how you define "finite". I can't address this without knowing which definition you mean this time.

No. Time is relative to space, velocity, and even perception.
Without perception, time wouldn't exist.
Without velocity(of everything), time wouldn't exist.
And without space, or universe, time wouldn't exist.

I disagree with basically every one of these assertions. Please prove them.

There has been numerous experiments too, that confirm this.

Cool. You should have no problem pointing me at an experience that shows that there's no time without perception then. I'll wait here.

 

[Ezzedean]

Evolution is a pretty cool concept. I am somewhat ignorant to it, but slowly learning. The reason I decided to look into it was because I had a discussion about it on here and ended up looking like a complete idiot. The way I see it is that what's believed we came from was just as much human as we are. God says that he created many before us, and he also explains that we (the human) change to adapt to the always changing earth... so the things we have found from the past are all creations of God, and if we did evolve from one state or shape to another... it is from the Will of God.

The difference between us and the species in which is believed we evolved from, are the size of the body, head, and brain. The intelligence was obviously a big difference, but again I believe God changed us to adapt to what was going on around us, and our environment... I believe this, because He said He did. So I don't know, the actual theory of it all is yet to be proved, and I dont think it will be... ever.

Peace