The Big Bang, Evolution, Creation, Life etc.

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Originally Posted by Koldo

A personal explanation is an explanation that belongs to a person.
Your personal explanation for the creation of the universe is a personal entity, but it could very well be an impersonal entity. There is no contradiction.

How can the explanation be impersonal when there was no physical reality prior to the universe??? If there is no nature prior to the universe, and yet something happened, the only explanation is personal.

Originally Posted by gnostic

If God is being represented by the chandelier, what is representing the singularity? If you want to describe the scenario where the time began, then it is important to pinpoint where exactly the singularity would be in this picture, and how the chandelier is interacting with it. If your analogy can't do this, then it is meaningless to our discussion.

The singularity is represented by the chandelier falling. Time began when the chandelier fell just like it began when the singularity began to expand.

Originally Posted by gnostic

Actually, everyone is born intelligent ( not to be confused with 'smart' ). And we develop our intelligence as we live. Also, if abiogenesis is accurate, intelligence did come from something that didn't have it ( unless you think inorganic matter possesses intelligence ).

There would be no abiogenesis if the universe didnt begin to exist. If there is a transcendent cause, then abiogenesis cannot be used as an explanation to explain the origin of life. God is the ultimate source of EVERYTHING. To pick one point on the timeline of 13.7 billion years and say "thats how it happened" without providing an explanation to what happened prior to that is how lies are spread and also how scientific religions are made.

Originally Posted by gnostic

How is the simultaneous causation happening in the cushion analogy ( considering the change from 'timeless to time' in your answer )?

A ball just resting on a cushion is an example of simultaneous causation. A ball that dropped from the air after being motionless for eternity is going from timeless to time.

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

In one sense you are referring to the chandelier's universe as Timeless, but then reference that the fixture 'has been hanging', which implies a passage of Time.

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

I see that you on the one hand wish to express that because the chandelier does not move until the moment it begins to fall, that Time does not actually exist in that universe.

Noooo it is an analogy of how time can begin to exist. In order to do this, you have to start from a timeless state. The chandelier was in a timeless state before it moved, and entered into the temporal realm from that point on. The universe beginning to exist was an event that was simultaneous with the creation of time. Just like the the first moment of motion with the chandelier was simulatenous with it entering the temporal realm.

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

But I believe the manner in which you were expressing this idea is a bit confusing. Either the chandelier does not fall because no Time exists yet, or, it actively hangs while Time passes, and THEN at some point, falls [thus hanging eternally, until...].

Ahhh but why would it fall??? If it has been hanging for all eternity, and there is no outside interference, why would it all of a sudden fall??? And if it did fall, why didnt it fall sooner?? Why not later, especially if there is no outside interference. But if the chandelier had a brain within it (using our imagination just a little more), it could FREELY choose to fall at any point, or it could FREELY choose to hang there for eternity more. Now of course, by "freely choose", i mean that it would always have had the eternal will of either falling or hanging. Whatever its eternal will was.

Thats the point i was trying to drive home. Our universe began to exist some 13.7 billion years ago. Why didnt it begin sooner, or later? This would only make sense if a transcendent being CHOOSE to create it at that SPECIFIC moment in time.

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Originally Posted by lunakilo

I am happy to hear that I must hav misunderstood you and you do infact agree with me that the background radiation says nothing about the future of the universe.

The CBR was a prediction of the standard model. Just more empirical evidence of the big bang.

Originally Posted by lunakilo

That is just wrong.
if the density parameter was slightly above 1 the universe would expand for a very long time before collapsing.
We don't know the density is not large enough to stop the expansion, current data may indicate that but since this is work in progress we do not know.

Borde/Guth/Vilenkin

[YmirGF]

Originally Posted by Call_of_the_Wild

And Darwin believed that we would find the missing link/transitional fossils. We havent found them yet.

Perhaps "you" have been looking in the wrong places, for the wrong things.

I am, however, sensing a nuanced meaning of transitional, so I doubt this list will impede the headlong charge of your argument, an iota.

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Koldo]

Originally Posted by Call_of_the_Wild

How can the explanation be impersonal when there was no physical reality prior to the universe??? If there is no nature prior to the universe, and yet something happened, the only explanation is personal.

What?! You are confusing 'personal explanation' ( which is an explanation that belongs to a person ) with an 'explanation that refers to a person', aren't you?

Originally Posted by Call_of_the_Wild

The singularity is represented by the chandelier falling. Time began when the chandelier fell just like it began when the singularity began to expand.

This doesn't make sense. The chandelier falling should represent the time. If the singularity was timeless then it had to exist as a physical object in your analogy.

Originally Posted by Call_of_the_Wild

If there is a transcendent cause, then abiogenesis cannot be used as an explanation to explain the origin of life.

Why not?

Originally Posted by Call_of_the_Wild

God is the ultimate source of EVERYTHING. To pick one point on the timeline of 13.7 billion years and say "thats how it happened" without providing an explanation to what happened prior to that is how lies are spread and also how scientific religions are made.

Do you mean, prior to abiogenesis?

Originally Posted by Call_of_the_Wild

A ball just resting on a cushion is an example of simultaneous causation. A ball that dropped from the air after being motionless for eternity is going from timeless to time.

This also doesn't make sense. If the ball dropped from the air then the ball caused the imprint on the cushion. No simultaneous causation happening.

[gnostic]

Originally Posted by call of the wild

Quote:
Originally Posted by gnostic
If God is being represented by the chandelier, what is representing the singularity? If you want to describe the scenario where the time began, then it is important to pinpoint where exactly the singularity would be in this picture, and how the chandelier is interacting with it. If your analogy can't do this, then it is meaningless to our discussion.

The singularity is represented by the chandelier falling. Time began when the chandelier fell just like it began when the singularity began to expand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gnostic
Actually, everyone is born intelligent ( not to be confused with 'smart' ). And we develop our intelligence as we live. Also, if abiogenesis is accurate, intelligence did come from something that didn't have it ( unless you think inorganic matter possesses intelligence ).

There would be no abiogenesis if the universe didnt begin to exist. If there is a transcendent cause, then abiogenesis cannot be used as an explanation to explain the origin of life. God is the ultimate source of EVERYTHING. To pick one point on the timeline of 13.7 billion years and say "thats how it happened" without providing an explanation to what happened prior to that is how lies are spread and also how scientific religions are made.


Quote:
Originally Posted by gnostic
How is the simultaneous causation happening in the cushion analogy ( considering the change from 'timeless to time' in your answer )?

A ball just resting on a cushion is an example of simultaneous causation. A ball that dropped from the air after being motionless for eternity is going from timeless to time.

I'm afraid that you're quoting from the wrong person. I didn't write any of those things.

[gnostic]

Originally Posted by call of the wild

Macroevolution is a well defined concept in biology.

Macro-evolution doesn't exist in the science world. It is the word that only Christian creationists would use.

[shawn001]

Originally Posted by Call_of_the_Wild

A dog is a different kind of animal than a horse. I understand this "species" business gets pretty iffy when it comes to animal classicfication. But nonetheless, a dog is a different kind of animal than a horse.



Yes



Macroevolution is a well defined concept in biology.

Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




And Darwin believed that we would find the missing link/transitional fossils. We havent found them yet.

"And Darwin believed that we would find the missing link/transitional fossils. We havent found them yet."

Yes we have!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This really hurts your credibility on science.

Evolution is a done deal and your comology supports it even. But all the sciences support it and the transional fossils are only part of the science. Chemistry, biology, archeology, modern genetics, geology and a whole lot more support it.

Which is why I guess when you said intelligence can't come from none intelligence you didn't get this from carl sagan, because that is what has happened over the last 4.57 billion years of the earth history.




Tell me how did the earth form and the moon?

[Daviso452]

Macro-evolution is defined, as a word is defined, but is not as well supported by evidence as micro-evolution.

As a sidenote, and I don't really care myself, but be careful with wiki articles. You can easily lose credibility, Wild.

p.s. I will admit I do not know too much about macro-evolution so go ahead and critiscize if I confused anything.

[terryboy]

This explains why dinosaurs went extinct