[_ Old Earth _] Hows this for logic

[Corn Pop]

Before the big bang there was nothing, then nothing caused the big bang.

 

[Sinthesis]

Google 'zero energy universe'.

 

[Corn Pop]

After nothing made something, life suddenly come from no life, and that single cell miracle just happened to survive the conditions where it randomly appeared. It just happened to be africa, not the freezing antactica, to cold, and not the ocean, it would have drowned. It just randomly appeared in africa. The perfect condition for life to evolve.

Then that cell just happened to randomly have everything it needed so perfectly set up for it multiply and create intelligent life and have everything we have today

All from nothing. Lol.

 

[Barbarian]

After nothing made something, life suddenly come from no life,

So God says...

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. [

and that single cell miracle just happened to survive the conditions where it randomly appeared.

Um, miracles aren't random. But what makes you think God couldn't do it the way He said?

It just happened to be africa, not the freezing antactica, to cold, and not the ocean, it would have drowned. It just randomly appeared in africa. The perfect condition for life to evolve.

First living things were in the sea.

Then that cell just happened to randomly have everything it needed so perfectly set up for it multiply and create intelligent life and have everything we have today

Which is way more than God could do, in your opinion?

 

[brother Paul]

Before the big bang there was nothing, then nothing caused the big bang.

This is the fallacy of first cause...just because something comes first does not equal that it causes what comes after. There IS God, then the beginning or big bang (terms which refers to this universe or creation). No "THING" existed...God is NOT a thing (part of created materiality).

Consider a man...God created the man to have free moral choice...God defined for him what is immoral and warns him of the consequence God prefers you do not suffer...the man does something immoral anyway...the man then suffers the consequence....God did NOT cause the man to do what is immoral....neither is He to blame for the suffering.

Consider now gravity....it is an immutable law with purpose to bless....violate it and you become SPLLATTT!!!! You know it is in error to jump yo your SPPLLATTT but you do it anyway....He offers a net anyway (Jesus) and you refuse...then SSPPLLAATTT!!!! Did He cause it? Is He to blame? No! Gravity came first but it did not cause your Spllaattt....someone did and that someone was YOU....God created the universe of things..."nothing" did not precede the beginning....God IS and He did it

 

[Corn Pop]

So God says...

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. [



Um, miracles aren't random. But what makes you think God couldn't do it the way He said?



First living things were in the sea.



Which is way more than God could do, in your opinion?

First living things were in the ocean?. How would you know that?. Do you just follow a trail without firm fact to come to that conclusion?

Science boasts about finding a new planet, yet thinks it knows the origins and all about the universe. The worlds greatest telescope in space is a joke compaired to the universe, were not even a grain of sand yet they know how it started and all about it.

We cannot even figure out nor have analized our own earth in full. Thats why a new fossil is another boast.

 

[Barbarian]

First living things were in the ocean?. How would you know that?.

The oldest fossils we have, from the Precambrian, are all marine organisms.

Do you just follow a trail without firm fact to come to that conclusion?

I'd be pleased to show you how we know this, if you'd like to start another thread. There's a lot of material to cover.

Science boasts about finding a new planet, yet thinks it knows the origins and all about the universe.

If you think so, you don't know any scientists. Every scientist will tell you that we only know a tiny fraction of what there is to know.

 

[Corn Pop]

The oldest fossils we have, from the Precambrian, are all marine organisms.



I'd be pleased to show you how we know this, if you'd like to start another thread. There's a lot of material to cover.



If you think so, you don't know any scientists. Every scientist will tell you that we only know a tiny fraction of what there is to know.

So you know the first living things,were from the ocean from the fossils science has. So what happens tommorow if scientists find a land animal fossil older than the oldest fossil?. You sudenly change your mind?

I understand science only goes on what they have and is progress, but anything can change in a day so its very unreliable to have faith in it.

 

[Barbarian]

So you know the first living things,were from the ocean from the fossils science has. So what happens tommorow if scientists find a land animal fossil older than the oldest fossil?. You sudenly change your mind?

And if we find pigs with functional wings tomorrow, I'll have to revise my conclusion that pigs can't fly. Yeah, one has to be willing to go with the truth, whatever it is.

I understand science only goes on what they have and is progress, but anything can change in a day

Tomorrow morning, gravity might go away. But I won't bother securing myself and my belongings to bedrock. I'm funny that way.

so its very unreliable to have faith in it.

Maybe the sun won't rise this morning. But I'm pretty sure it will.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Before the big bang there was nothing, then nothing caused the big bang.

What is this "before", you speak of?

 

[Malachi]

Before the big bang there was nothing, then nothing caused the big bang.

Extremely logical yet extremely absurd. The fundamental law of the universe is that every effect has a cause.

 

[Malachi]

What is this "before", you speak of?

The one that precedes "after".

 

[Malachi]

And if we find pigs with functional wings tomorrow, I'll have to revise my conclusion that pigs can't fly. Yeah, one has to be willing to go with the truth, whatever it is.

Who says pigs don't fly? The ones that feed at the public trough fly first class daily.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Extremely logical yet extremely absurd. The fundamental law of the universe is that every effect has a cause.

You mean Newtonian Mechanics says that every action has an equal or opposite reaction. Why would this apply to the origin of the universe?

 

[Barbarian]

Who says pigs don't fly? The ones that feed at the public trough fly first class daily.

I'm thinking the fossil record will indeed be overturned, right around the time when you find a pig with functional wings. But it could happen. Nice demonstration of the creationist habit of equivocation, though.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Everything is either logical or illogical, depending on what you think.
How's that for logic?
Or illogic?

 

[Malachi]

You mean Newtonian Mechanics says that every action has an equal or opposite reaction. Why would this apply to the origin of the universe?

No. We are talking about Metaphysics.

Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it

 

[Cygnus]

Before the big bang there was nothing, then nothing caused the big bang.

Some look at it that way.....and I agree partially. From nothing you get nothing...by that I mean something can't self create. Something can't be and not be at the same time.

Of course if there is anything at all..there is the need for a being that never wasn't..always was. The being is a Trinity.

The part I disagree with? There never was a big bang.

 

[Cygnus]

I'm thinking the fossil record will indeed be overturned, right around the time when you find a pig with functional wings. But it could happen. Nice demonstration of the creationist habit of equivocation, though.

The fossil record has indeed been overturned. Here's an example.


When the Cambrian fossils are examined it is seen that the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the Cambrian strata with no ancestral linage leading up to the many different phyla and classes.

In other word, you don't see the speciation of animals producing different genera, then the continuation of morphological evolution producing animals that can be divided into different families and then orders.

Instead, as mentioned above, the Cambrian geological record contains fossilized animals that are very diverse in the hierarchy of the taxonomical rank and show no sign of a slow divergence from a common ancestor....the mutations are not show to add up and cause change over the years.

The theory belonging to evolutionism tells us that all life evolved from a common ancestor. This hypothesis is taught as fact in our schools and even presented from time to time on this forum as the truth. But is it true or just another lie from the camps of evolutionism which have been kept secret?

The question becomes:

Why do the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the Cambrian fossils with no ancestral linage leading up to the phyla and classes that are found fossilized there as the T.O.E. predict they should?

Instead, a major problem for evolutionism is recognized. The geological record has fossilized animals that are very diverse in the hierarchy of the taxonomical rank and show no sign of a slow divergence from a common ancestor. The animals found in the Cambrian strata are already divided into different phyla and classes.

The bedrock, or the basement strata of rocks don't present descent with modification as the theory of evolutionism calls for. In fact, one could claim that it appears to be pretty much up-side-down.

 

[Barbarian]

The fossil record has indeed been overturned. Here's an example.
When the Cambrian fossils are examined it is seen that the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in theCambrian strata with no ancestral linage leading up to the many different phyla and classes.

Let's test that assumption of yours. Show me a bird in the Cambrian. And a flowering plant. A frog. A turtle. A monkey. A tree. An insect. A spider. That's not a rhetorical request. Show us those things, and then your claim will have some credbility.

In other word, you don't see the speciation of animals producing different genera,

Even most creationists now admit that much. Both ICR and "Answers in Genesis" now concede the point that speciation is a fact. In fact, the ICR promotes a study claiming that new species, genera, and families evolve.

Instead, as mentioned above, the Cambrian geological record contains fossilized animals that are very diverse in the hierarchy of the taxonomical rank and show no sign of a slow divergence from a common ancestor....

You've been misled about that. Turns out, complex multicellular life appeared long before the Cambrian. The Edicaran biota shows much simpler organisms, from which modern phyla evolved. Would you like to learn about that?

The theory belonging to evolutionism tells us that all life evolved from a common ancestor.

The first inkling of this came about when Linnaeus figured out the nested hierarchy of taxa that we now know only happens in cases of common descent. And he started with the assumption of special creation. So the evidence preceded the theory, as it should. Then, Darwin noted the anatomical evidence for common descent and explained why it happens. Much later, the fossil record showed an almost infinite number of transitional forms between existing taxa, and even later, genetic data again confirmed common descent. So you've got a mountain to move, if you want to cover up the evidence.

This hypothesis is taught as fact in our schools

Theory. A theory is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested and verified. So anatomy, embryology, genetics, fossil transitionals, and observed speciations have all verified Darwin's theory. Evolution is a fact, like gravity. In fact, it's more solidly based than gravity. We know why evolution works, but we still aren't quite sure why gravity works.

The question becomes:

Will a creationist step up and verify that assumption by showing us a bird in the Cambrian, a flowering plant, a frog a turtle, monkey a tree, an insect and a spider in undisturbed Cambrian deposits? I'm predicting that no one will do that, and there will be numerous excuses as to why they can't verify the claim.

Why do the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the Cambrian fossils

The don't. Aves, mammalia, reptilia, etc. are unknown in Cambrian deposits. You've been given some false information.

Instead, a major problem for creationism appears. Not only are modern taxa unknown in the Cambrian, they appear slowly over time, with numerous transistions.

If you doubt this, name me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find you a transitional form. That's not a rhetorical request, either. I want to see if you can support you assumption with some facts.

You're on. Let's see what you've got.