This thread is not about evolution.

[Thief]

This is fine if your understanding of physics comes from before the time of Sir Isaac Newton.

And you would have that 'point' that seems to be missing?

Go ahead try....

But ultimately 'Something' set all things into motion.

Spirit first.

 

[Gunfingers]

And you would have that 'point' that seems to be missing?

Go ahead try....

But ultimately 'Something' set all things into motion.

Spirit first.

Did it?

Everything as far back as the first Planck-Second after the Big Bang has been calculated out. What happened after that first Planck-Second is, therefore, pretty well established.

What happened during that first Planck-Second is unknowable. Physics as we know it doesn't make sense at distances less than Planck-Length (and thus times less than the time it takes light to travel one Planck-Length, AKA a Planck-Second) making that period impossible to conceive. Asking what happened before that is like asking what's north of the north pole because there was no time prior to the Big Bang. Proper causality requires time, ergo there is no reason to believe that the Big Bang was the result of any causal event.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Did it?

Everything as far back as the first Planck-Second after the Big Bang has been calculated out. What happened after that first Planck-Second is, therefore, pretty well established.

What happened during that first Planck-Second is unknowable. Physics as we know it doesn't make sense at distances less than Planck-Length (and thus times less than the time it takes light to travel one Planck-Length, AKA a Planck-Second) making that period impossible to conceive. Asking what happened before that is like asking what's north of the north pole because there was no time prior to the Big Bang. Proper causality requires time, ergo there is no reason to believe that the Big Bang was the result of any causal event.

Very well said!
:clap

 

[Thief]

Did it?

Everything as far back as the first Planck-Second after the Big Bang has been calculated out. What happened after that first Planck-Second is, therefore, pretty well established.

What happened during that first Planck-Second is unknowable. Physics as we know it doesn't make sense at distances less than Planck-Length (and thus times less than the time it takes light to travel one Planck-Length, AKA a Planck-Second) making that period impossible to conceive. Asking what happened before that is like asking what's north of the north pole because there was no time prior to the Big Bang. Proper causality requires time, ergo there is no reason to believe that the Big Bang was the result of any causal event.

Equations cannot resolve the beginning.....genesis.
There is no secondary point....in the beginning.

All things that move were set into motion.....
God did it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Maybe God did it. But really, it makes no practical difference if it was so, and it is forever a matter of faith as opposed to fact, so everyone is free to believe or doubt it as they please.

 

[Thief]

Maybe God did it. But really, it makes no practical difference if it was so, and it is forever a matter of faith as opposed to fact, so everyone is free to believe or doubt it as they please.

yeah.....

but with life after death pending...perhaps you don't believe?....

What stands over you?...as you surrender your last breath?

If there is nothing waiting for you...then I suppose....
nothing further of you.

 

[Maury83]

Maybe God did it. But really, it makes no practical difference if it was so, and it is forever a matter of faith as opposed to fact, so everyone is free to believe or doubt it as they please.

Agree...and wether science or religion, there is always a time when faith is needed.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

typical creationist horse crap. Trying to make themselves feel better about their beliefs by trying to bring science down to it's level.

One doesn't need faith in science.

Because faith is belief in the absence of evidence.

If there's no evidence it's not science.

-Q

 

[Maury83]

If there's no evidence it's not science.

-Q

EXACTLY!:yes:

 

[LuisDantas]

yeah.....

but with life after death pending...perhaps you don't believe?....

What stands over you?...as you surrender your last breath?

If there is nothing waiting for you...then I suppose....
nothing further of you.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. What are you asking me about? Belief in God?

I very much doubt I will ever believe in God, and I don't see why the prospect of imminent death would make any difference there. But that is quite besides the matter of Evolution anyway, isn't it?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

EXACTLY!:yes:

ok i'll bite what do you think is not science?

 

[McBell]

What stands over you?...as you surrender your last breath?

I have not seen anything to make me even suspect that there is something that "stands over me" as I surrender my last breath or otherwise.

Perhaps you can present something, other than your belief, that there is?

 

[Maury83]

ok i'll bite what do you think is not science?

I am seriously interested in all the explanations that science has to give to life....honestly. Science facinates me, and there are endless discoveries that I admire and believe in. But when it comes to the origin of life and the facts that prove it, then you lose me...that's all.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

I am seriously interested in all the explanations that science has to give to life....honestly. Science facinates me, and there are endless discoveries that I admire and believe in. But when it comes to the origin of life and the facts that prove it, then you lose me...that's all.

Yep that's what happens when the facts contradict your beliefs.

The difference between you and me is that i can't ignore facts so that my beliefs can remain propped up.

 

[Maury83]

It's not that they contradict my beliefs because many of my beliefs run along side scientific discoveries. The difference is that when it comes to THE issue of the origin of life science has no answers apart from suppositions. It would be foolish on the part of anyone not to believe in facts....

 

[LuisDantas]

You have a point. There is speculation, but indeed no true scientific answer on what the origin of life was.

That may be due to change Real Soon Now, and then again it may not. I personally believe that live cells will eventually, perhaps soon, be synthesized in laboratory... but even so, that will not prove that it happened in a similar way originally. Even if it did, that might still be due to a Divine Will as far as anyone can tell.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

It's not that they contradict my beliefs because many of my beliefs run along side scientific discoveries. The difference is that when it comes to THE issue of the origin of life science has no answers apart from suppositions. It would be foolish on the part of anyone not to believe in facts....

Ok so this is what this whole thread is about, getting the facts out of you.

Trashing the ToE is in no way a supporting fact for creationism.

Trashing abiogenesis is in no way a supporting fact for creationsism.

The fact that you don't know how life came into existence is in no way a fact supporting creationism.

Even if the ToE and abiogenesis turned out to be wrong it would only prove that the proponents of those two theories are wrong. It would no way be a supporting fact for creationism.

So back to the OP.

1. State your hypothesis. That is, in your view, how did God go about creating the various species we see today.
2. Make some predictions based on your hypothesis. If this hypothesis is correct, what would we expect to observe? These observations should be such that if we don't observe them, your hypothesis would be disproved. In other words, your hypothesis should be falsifiable.
3. Show that the predictions match reality.

Here i'll fill in the first question for you.

1. God magically poofed everything into existence.

Now your turn to fill in questions 2 and 3.

 

[astarath]

Not magically poofed. Skillfully created.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

You have a point. There is speculation, but indeed no true scientific answer on what the origin of life was.

That may be due to change Real Soon Now, and then again it may not. I personally believe that live cells will eventually, perhaps soon, be synthesized in laboratory... but even so, that will not prove that it happened in a similar way originally. Even if it did, that might still be due to a Divine Will as far as anyone can tell.

You are indeed correct living cells may soon be synthesized in a lab.

And the ToMP could be one of the theories to explain how this could have occured in nature. However said theory will have to be backed up by facts.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Not magically poofed. Skillfully created.

Ok great. That's the answer to question 1.

Now to questions 2 and 3.

Keep going you're doing better than anyone else in this thread.