[Pairadocs]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

So is the choice between evolution and creation? Did things "just happen" and then bumbled along haphazardly from there, resulting in the world we have today? Sorry, I don't buy it. The reason is as follows.

"Most people know about DNA (aka deoxyribonucleic acid) as the molecule that holds the information, i.e. the genetic codes, within our bodies. What some people don’t realise is that this equates to a seriously large amount of information being stored within a single biomolecule. DNA molecules can store up to 215 petabytes, or 215 million gigabytes, of data in a single doubled stranded molecule, making it one of the highest storage density mediums in the world. Simply put, the information storage devices within our bodies are much more capable than we can currently create, so there has been a lot of focus in trying to harness the power and data storage capabilities of DNA for our own man-made data storage systems." (Electro pages: storing information and data with DNA). ONE petabyte contains 500 billion pages of standard printed text. Multiply that by 215... I am not sure I can comprehend a number that large. That number is contained in a "database" if you can call it that, that exists on a submicroscopic level. Asking somebody to believe that that "just happened" is beyond ludicrous. The watch proves the existence of the watchmaker

That said, I'm not convinced that the fossil record is solid proof of anything. So few living things become fossils; conditions have to be just right for fossilization to happen. I recall hearing something recently that may be one in 100,000 animals or plants become fossils, and even with the ones that do become fossils, there is no guarantee that they will be found, or that they will not be destroyed in some natural event such as a flood, volcano, or whatever. To me, expecting the fossil record to be a reliable chronology of development is like depending on a calendar with maybe five numbers on it to be the reliable chronology of the number of days in a decade.

But we can use reasoning. We know, or think we know, two things. Fossils exist, and the earth changes. Oftentimes those changes in the earth are widespread and drastic. Assuming the existence of a creator God, we can also assume intelligence and foreknowledge on the part of that God. If God created the physical environment to change, as it does, then is it not reasonable to assume that God also provided the life he created to adapt according to the changes of the physical environment? Again, assuming the existence of that God, the answer cannot be no. The proof is that we are here.

I have never seen evolution versus creation as an either/or thing. In my mind they exist together working perfectly in tandem. They always have.

I completely agree ! I have never consider them mutually exclusive for the same reasons you outlined ! But, the idea that they can not both be true, certainly makes for more fodder for media, politicos, etc.

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by Blueblaze

Well, in the case of Quantum Mechanics, if you don't get the math, I guess you'll just have to take it from me. If a particle isn't observed, it doesn't exist. "Multiple Universes" is just a sci-fi idea that grew out of popular misunderstanding of the math.

I don't get your second comment about evolution. What does exercise have to do with evolution? I never said I disagreed that evolution changes species from one to another.

The reason I mentioned the Bible wasn't to hold it up as authority. I don't care if you believe it or not. I mentioned it because YOU claimed that an omnipotent God can't change. The God in the Bible has changed many times. The god of every religion I know of changes. You are the only one who seems to confuse omnipotence with static perfection, and I merely used the Christian God as an example to refute that idea.

I'm not sure if any human religion has all the answers -- I doubt it. But I will say that the religion of Western Civilization produced the best results of any I know of, since we were the first to grant liberty to ordinary people, and the first to harness enlightened self-interest in the form of capitalism, to raise the human condition out of abject poverty and misery. So if I had to guess, I would guess the Christians must be closer to the truth than most.

Good news for people in hell, god can be wrong, " The God in the Bible has changed many times. The god of every religion I know of changes. You are the only one who seems to confuse omnipotence with static perfection, and I merely used the Christian God as an example to refute that idea." There should be no problem finding lawyers in the same place who will help you file an appeal, but then I am still stuck on the watch has to have a watchmaker idea, that somehow you don't then need a creation source for the watchmaker , to my poor logic god is and always was doesn't explain

[Rainger99]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

Why do we need a deep thinkers two?

I don’t think any posting on TOTV should be called “Deep Thinkers.”

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

For some that may be enough. For others it is not enough. For some it is enough that their belly is full. Others, once their hunger has been satisfied, begin to realize that they get hungry at regular intervals, and they begin wondering where their next meal will come from. This is the beginning of curiosity. After some time they are wondering about all sorts of things. Now we are wondering about the creation of, not just the world, but the entire universe. We wonder about creation itself. Pretty amazing what we are capable of. Only about 150,000 years ago we were small apeish creatures whose only concerns were food and predators. Now we think amazing thoughts, do amazing things. If we could quit squabbling and manage to survive another 150,000 years, I wonder what we might become. What thoughts will they be thinking. And what amazing things will they be doing.
I wonder! Don't you?

Well said.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe

Good news for people in hell, god can be wrong, " The God in the Bible has changed many times. The god of every religion I know of changes. You are the only one who seems to confuse omnipotence with static perfection, and I merely used the Christian God as an example to refute that idea." There should be no problem finding lawyers in the same place who will help you file an appeal, but then I am still stuck on the watch has to have a watchmaker idea, that somehow you don't then need a creation source for the watchmaker , to my poor logic god is and always was doesn't explain

Something I've pondered.

"Always was" presupposes a beginning date or event. Call it the Big Bang, call it the Creation, call it whatever. But in order to define "always" we have to have a beginning. Our reality begins with that beginning. Our perception cannot extend beyond, or outside, that reality, because it is all there is.

Therefore to ask "what happened BEFORE the beginning?" is illogical. There is no way we can ever know.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

Something I've pondered.

"Always was" presupposes a beginning date or event. Call it the Big Bang, call it the Creation, call it whatever. But in order to define "always" we have to have a beginning. Our reality begins with that beginning. Our perception cannot extend beyond, or outside, that reality, because it is all there is.

Therefore to ask "what happened BEFORE the beginning?" is illogical. There is no way we can ever know.

Disagree with your definition of "always was". To me "always" indicates infinity. If you presuppose a starting date then to say something has "always" been would be incorrect. It has only been "since the starting date".
To ponder what happened before is actually possible. We haven't mentioned it yet, but there is a theory that the universe oscillates. The universe will expand, slow to a stop, then collapse then start over again.

[Davonu]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

Disagree with your definition of "always was". To me "always" indicates infinity. If you presuppose a starting date then to say something has "always" been would be incorrect. It has only been "since the starting date".
To ponder what happened before is actually possible. We haven't mentioned it yet, but there is a theory that the universe oscillates. The universe will expand, slow to a stop, then collapse then start over again.

Agree. But it still doesn’t answer the question of how/when the oscillations started.

But the oscillations have been there forever! Forever? What’s that? We’re back to the beginning of the discussion again.

[JerryLBell]

The argument is: Complex things require creators. The universe is so complex that it requires a creator.

However, if complex things can't arise without a creator from simpler things, then the creator must be more complex than the created thing. But that beggars the question: How did the creator come to be? The usual answer is that the creator "just is". Even as a child I thought that was a silly answer, on part with "Because I said so!"

Science has always struck me not as having all the answers but as being a process that eventually comes closer and closer to having answers that are accurate enough to be verifiable and be predictive. As far as the fossil record being incomplete, that is true. However, it is FAR more complete than some folks (including the OP) give it credit for. Whenever someone claims that no one has found the "missing link" between a predecessor species and an successor species, the fact is that there are usually several such examples showing intermediary speciation.

Oh well. You can't convince some folks. Some folks see ships disappearing below the horizon and the seeming flatness of the land around them as proof positive that the world is flat.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Davonu

Agree. But it still doesn’t answer the question of how/when the oscillations started.

But the oscillations have been there forever! Forever? What’s that? We’re back to the beginning of the discussion again.

Infinity! Forever! Finite creatures attempting to truly comprehend the infinite is a near, if not completely, impossible exercise. Our best effort to visualize is likely the mobius strip. But, in reality, trying to comprehend the incomprehensible, know the unknowable is impossible. Still, we can think about it, talk about it, theorize and philosophise about it, and I think that is amazing.