Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

In that case, the empirical evidence does refute 'creation' in various ways - for example a global flood

Shirakawasuna wrote:

In that case, the empirical evidence does refute 'creation' in various ways - for example a global flood

Been talking to farmerman, I see.

The Flood and creation are two entirely different issues.

Obviously any Flood took place many years AFTER any creation had happened.

Shirakawasuna wrote:

In that case, the empirical evidence does refute 'creation' in various ways - for example a global flood

Been talking to farmerman, I see.

The Flood and creation are two entirely different issues.

Obviously any Flood took place many years AFTER any creation had happened.

Now don't take me wrong, I don't have any prior biases against singularities. It just isn't productive to attempt an explanation of them or speak of implications to someone who so clearly only wants to play the incredulous critic

FM claimed empirical evidence refutes creation.

I asked a direct question 'do you have empirical evidence of a singularity?'

And your answer to that question was to cite CMBR as your evidence.

The standard big bang models are the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) solutions of the gravitational field equations of general relativity. These can describe open or closed universes. All these FRW universes have a singularity at the origin of time which represents the big bang. Black holes also have singularities. Furthermore, in the case of a closed universe no light can escape which is just the common definition of a black hole. So what is the difference?

The first clear difference is that the big bang singularity of the FRW models lies in the past of all events in the universe, whereas the singularity of a black hole lies in the future. The big bang is therefore more like a white hole which is the time reversal of a black hole.

Creation addresses the origin of all things:

the cosmos
first life
man

etc

No one has said the Flood was the cause of the origin of anything.

Creation addresses the origin of all things:

the cosmos
first life
man

etc

real life wrote:

Interestingly, depending on who you talk to, the singularity either was or wasn't composed of the kind of energy which would be subject our universe's physical laws

As for physical laws operating in a singularity, there are many different ways singularities are dealt with in theoretical physics, models in cosmology, etc - people have come up with many different ways to describe them. As such, for some general models the singularity just makes things explode and incomprehensible, in others there's a bit of rhyme and reason involved. That's the nice thing about science

real life wrote:

Creation addresses the origin of all things:

the cosmos
first life
man

etc

Do you perceive each of these as separate creation events, or do you see them as natural results of the first event?

real life wrote:

Creation addresses the origin of all things:

the cosmos
first life
man

etc

No one has said the Flood was the cause of the origin of anything.

Oh, so then you are saying the Flood never originated so never occurred.

real life wrote:

Creation addresses the origin of all things:

the cosmos
first life
man

etc

Do you perceive each of these as separate creation events, or do you see them as natural results of the first event?

real life wrote:

Creation addresses the origin of all things:

the cosmos
first life
man

etc

No one has said the Flood was the cause of the origin of anything.

Oh, so then you are saying the Flood never originated so never occurred.

Shirakawasuna wrote:

Now don't take me wrong, I don't have any prior biases against singularities. It just isn't productive to attempt an explanation of them or speak of implications to someone who so clearly only wants to play the incredulous critic

'We have evidence'
'We have evidence'
'We have evidence'
'We have evidence'
'We have evidence'
'We have evidence'
'We have evidence'
'We have evidence'
'ahem'
'But if someone DARES criticize our position or ask where's the evidence?, well, it's just not productive[/u][/i] to speak of the implications'

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

Creation addresses the origin of all things:

the cosmos
first life
man

etc

No one has said the Flood was the cause of the origin of anything.

Oh, so then you are saying the Flood never originated so never occurred.

What are you talking about?

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

Creation addresses the origin of all things:

the cosmos
first life
man

etc

Do you perceive each of these as separate creation events, or do you see them as natural results of the first event?

I think I answered that a few pages back. By 'natural results of the first event' you are implying evolution, correct?

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

Creation addresses the origin of all things:

the cosmos
first life
man

etc

Do you perceive each of these as separate creation events, or do you see them as natural results of the first event?

This is a very reasonable question, IMHO.
As a personal aside, I view them as 'guided', for lack of a better word.

Creation addresses the origin of all things. Not the subsequent actions of all things.