What Proof Does Evolution Offer For Natural Beginning Of Life

Ceridwen018 said:

HelpMe, you could do some outside reasearch, you know...
That aside, the big bang happened billion and billions of years ago, possibly even trillions.
...a presumed ballpark idea.

Click to expand...

so whatever outside research i do(and i do), how would i discern what you hold unless i ask?

billions in comparison to trillions is a little outside the boundaries for correct use of the term 'ballpark idea', wouldn't you agree?

HelpMe said:

billions in comparison to trillions is a little outside the boundaries for correct use of the term 'ballpark idea', wouldn't you agree?

Click to expand...

It was about 14 billion years ago, if my memory of my last lecture serves me.

Spinkles--For learnings sake, do you know how scientists are able to predict the age of the total universe, i.e., before the earth and solar system was created, etc?

Well, it's a bit complicated, but here's the simplified version: let's say you and I are walking in opposite directions from each other at 5 miles/hour, and we are 1 mile apart. By dividing the distance by the relative velocity we find that 1/5 of an hour ago, the distance between you and I was zero. In the same way, if we know the apparent velocity of a galaxy, and we know the distance between it and us, we can determine how long ago the distance between us and that galaxy was zero--this length of time is the approximate age of the universe.

14 billion years is an estimate, of course, as the distances to other galaxies is uncertain and the apparent velocities of other galaxies are not all the same.

Ah perfect--I understand. Wow, that's so interesting!

the universe did not exist before the galaxies started speeding away from eachother?

What do you think that the univerce is HelpMe? perhaps then I can answer that for you.

wa:do

"everything we can see" is what i would say.

"All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole." is what dictionary.com says

well than based on that definition, then the univerce did not exist before the big bang... unless you hold to the super-string theory. At least it did not exist as we know it now.

wa:do

well according to 'us(we)' it is expanding, so it does not exist now...as it exists...now.

'all matter and energy'

everything came from whatever the big-bang consisted of, thus we are of it.so, how did all of the substance involved in that come to be?

HelpMe said:

how did all of the substance involved in that come to be?

Click to expand...

No one knows for sure, HelpMe. That's why this field is so exciting.

or, perhaps, unsatisfying.

or, perhaps, unsatisfying.

Click to expand...

Then so, too, must the field of theology/religion be. You don't know how God would go about creating the universe, do you? Or how she got the materials? Or how she existed? Why she existed? If anything, theology/religion is just as "unsatisfying" as science/physics/quantum physics.

Druidus said:

Then so, too, must the field of theology/religion be...

Or how she got the materials?...

If anything, theology/religion is just as "unsatisfying" as science/physics/quantum physics.

Click to expand...

1-there was a reason i intentionally included the word 'perhaps'.so your use of the word 'must' is erroneous.

2-with this laughable statement, you seem to have a horrible inability to grasp the concept* of 'god'.

*which is of course that 'god' has no rules to follow.

3-this is why i included the word 'perhaps', so it may be left as an unattacked opinion.

1-there was a reason i intentionally included the word 'perhaps'.so your use of the word 'must' is erroneous.

Click to expand...

Perhaps is there, to a degree. The word itself no, but the concept. It is inferred that for my statement to be correct, yours would have to be as well.

2-with this laughable statement, you seem to have a horrible inability to grasp the concept* of 'god'. *which is of course that 'god' has no rules to follow.

Click to expand...

Indeed, but this is your concept. In my view, no God can be omnipotent. Truly, there are some rules. How could a God create a stone that she couldn't lift? Or a book too complex for her to read? For these reasons, by simple logic, we know that a God could never be "all-powerful", at least IMHO.

3-this is why i included the word 'perhaps', so it may be left as an unattacked opinion.

Click to expand...

I did not attack your opinion. I merely expanded on it, logically.

Druidus said:

How could a God create a stone that she couldn't lift? Or a book too complex for her to read? For these reasons, by simple logic, we know that a God could never be "all-powerful", at least IMHO.

Click to expand...

why do you refer to 'god' as a gender?


although scripturally i find no reason to call 'god' omnipotent, i myself need only to call 'god' self-sufficient(or 'the source of all reality known or not'), unlike all of 'god''s creation.

there are several ways to approach the question, of which i will only list a few i like.

That is, if god did not have the ability to render himself non-omnipotent, THEN he wouldn't be omnipotent. The demand that God create round triangles is a demand for God to work ontological nonsense. the question is not logical if God is infinitely powerful. infinite power cannot out due infinite power. it is not logical, for you have the infinite competing against the infinite... and in this case its only one subject.

In order to measure the power of something, you typically compare it to another thing. In this case, the question is trying to contrast Gods power to Gods power. Since His power is constant and infinite, there is no way He can create a limitation for it.This is a competition where there is only one subject, and since that subject is infinitely powerful, there is no way it can defeat itself.

In asking this question, the questioner has already assumed the existence of gravity. By definition, God created everything. Hence, God created gravity. Since God can create gravity, he can certainly make it disappear. So God can lift any stone. Put another way, this question could become: if God were to have an arm wrestling match between his right arm and left arm, which arm would win? Both arms belong to God. This is not a contest; there is no winning or losing. Therefore this is a stupid question.God can create a rock He chooses not to lift.One automatically in thinking about god assumes that His power is related to physical assertion.'god' merely has to say or will something to happen for it to happen. Weight and mass are thus restrictions that we have imposed on Him but which in reality do not affect 'god'.

However.God could then decide to give Himself enough extra strength so that He could lift the object, and then later decide to make the object heavier so that He could no longer lift it with the extra strenght He previously gave to Himself. He could then reduce the mass of the object so that He could lift it, but then reduce the amount of strength He gave to Himself such that He would be unable to lift it. This increase/decrease of the mass/strenght variables could go on forever rendering the question's assumed meaning of omnipotent self contradictory and is unanswerable.



could you beat yourself in a race?stupid circular question IMHO.

HelpMe the first blast of energy created the materials for the formation of the univerce. The first super-heavy elements (some with half lives measured in fractions of seconds like Roentgenium wich has a half life of 15 milliseconds) quickly broke down and created other lighter elements. The elements gathered into clouds and formed the early univerce.
agian I point out : http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/acosmbb.html
perhaps this one will help you as well: http://origins.stsci.edu/under/understanding.shtml

wa:do

what caused that blast of energy?are you saying said *big bang* created the materials of the universe from scratch?

"..evidence of possible past life .."

why do you refer to 'god' as a gender?

Click to expand...

Because there is no word to define a God as a neutral entity. Except for "it", which is, in effect, an insult, as it refers mainly to non-living entities and concepts. Therefore, I use a gender word. Seeing as how I prefer a semblance of balance to occur, I use the feminine version of the word, because most choose the masculine.

You, too, have referred to your God as an gender bearing entity.

I had the foresight to see that you would post an answer such as that. Answer the non-physical one. Can she create such a complex book? In this case, she is fighting against her own intellect. Perhaps to simplify it, we can say that she wants to develop a riddle which is harder then she can solve. Can her mentality come up with this? No. She cannot create that which she cannot answer, therefore, she is not omnisentient, perhaps, an aspect of omnipotency. Omnipotency means the power to do anything and everything, which she now cannot do, no matter how you put it. Therefore, even a God is limited by some rules.

although scripturally i find no reason to call 'god' omnipotent, i myself need only to call 'god' self-sufficient(or 'the source of all reality known or not'), unlike all of 'god''s creation.

Click to expand...

Oh?

"... with God all things are possible." -- Matthew 19:26

Click to expand...

And that's not omnipotency? However, it is contradicted later, so it is unclear, I suppose:

"...The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." -- Judges 1:19

Click to expand...

Druidus said:

Therefore, even a God is limited by some rules.

Click to expand...

your question is still circular*, assuming(who ever said 'god' abided to our law of gravity?), and thus invalid.

*can you beat yourself in a race?can you read faster than yourself?

i have only referred to 'god' in gender by habbit, i mean nothing of it.el-shaddai is feminine, but in many instances 'god' is 'biblically' painted as masculine.'god' has no reason to be gender specific or no equal opposite to reproduce with, so i think gender is a moot issue.i do not believe 'it' is an insulting way to refer to an almighty, as i nor you or anyone knows the almighty's mind.

i'm sorry you're in a state of mind so as to take some biblical verses literally when unnecesarry(sp) or out of context so as to create a contradiction, i have a few suggestions for you.try verses such as jude1:5"...ye know all things..." and ask the subject an unanswerable question(such as your neighbor's mother's maiden name).(please don't debate this here, there is a thread entitled 'biblical contradictions' or something to that effect for such dialogue)

Judges 1:19

Click to expand...

answer

to say he couldn't do something can very well imply that it was against his will, not that it was impossible.