Evolution? How?

Well, Its been a fun experience. Im going to do some field work in the next few weeks so , Ill be off the boards. Sounds like this thread has taken a different tack anyway.

BTW, we have many evidence of man creating many different gods. You cannot even provide one evidence that your god exists, but we have growing evidence that the big bang is more true than not.

So you believe in the Big Bang. Matter and energy interacted in such a way to produce the physical universe that we now see, etc. We are all familiar with the idea.

So where did that matter and energy come from?

Frank,

A quick question. In another post in another thread you made a statement that thoroughly confused me.

You said ....I am a Christian (of sorts)....

Can you explain that?

Questioner wrote:

neologist wrote:

No class has a monopoly on straw men.

Which strawman are you referring to that needs removing?

Terry listed a bunch here: http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1600027#1600027

real life wrote:

So you believe in the Big Bang. Matter and energy interacted in such a way to produce the physical universe that we now see, etc. We are all familiar with the idea.

So where did that matter and energy come from?

Whatever rationalization you can come up with for where your creator came from will work equally well for the above question.....

mesquite wrote:

real life wrote:

So you believe in the Big Bang. Matter and energy interacted in such a way to produce the physical universe that we now see, etc. We are all familiar with the idea.

So where did that matter and energy come from?

Whatever rationalization you can come up with for where your creator came from will work equally well for the above question.....

Do I understand you to imply that belief in an eternally pre-existent Creator whose actions produced the universe (Creation) and belief in eternally pre-existent matter/energy which by blind chance produced the universe (the Big Bang) are ideas which carry EQUAL validity?

I doubt that this is what you meant, but your meaning was rather vague.

mesquite wrote:

real life wrote:

So you believe in the Big Bang. Matter and energy interacted in such a way to produce the physical universe that we now see, etc. We are all familiar with the idea.

So where did that matter and energy come from?

Whatever rationalization you can come up with for where your creator came from will work equally well for the above question.....

Do I understand you to imply that belief in an eternally pre-existent Creator whose actions produced the universe (Creation) and belief in eternally pre-existent matter/energy which by blind chance produced the universe (the Big Bang) are ideas which carry EQUAL validity?

I doubt that this is what you meant, but your meaning was rather vague.

The Big Bang carries far more validity, since it has been arrived at by centuries of physics, as opposed to the Biblical story of creation, which is merely stated in an ancient text written by our pre-scientific ancestors.

The two aren't even comparable. I remind you that you have little knowledge of or competency with physical cosmology, or even its basic underpinnings, so be careful in criticizing something that you truly do not understand. You do know, however, that physics generally is developed using the scientific method, which has worked well enough to result in PCs and the Internet, not to mention human civilization.

real life wrote:

mesquite wrote:

real life wrote:

So you believe in the Big Bang. Matter and energy interacted in such a way to produce the physical universe that we now see, etc. We are all familiar with the idea.

So where did that matter and energy come from?

Whatever rationalization you can come up with for where your creator came from will work equally well for the above question.....

Do I understand you to imply that belief in an eternally pre-existent Creator whose actions produced the universe (Creation) and belief in eternally pre-existent matter/energy which by blind chance produced the universe (the Big Bang) are ideas which carry EQUAL validity?

I doubt that this is what you meant, but your meaning was rather vague.

The Big Bang carries far more validity, since it has been arrived at by centuries of physics, as opposed to the Biblical story of creation, which is merely stated in an ancient text written by our pre-scientific ancestors.

The two aren't even comparable. I remind you that you have little knowledge of or competency with physical cosmology, or even its basic underpinnings, so be careful in criticizing something that you truly do not understand. You do know, however, that physics generally is developed using the scientific method, which has worked well enough to result in PCs and the Internet, not to mention human civilization.

Hi Brandon,

When I asked you if the matter/energy that were involved in the Big Bang had themselves been created or were eternally pre-existent, you did not offer a definitive answer, but allowed how scientists were still studying the matter to come to a conclusion.

I guess if we just continually give that answer to all questions of science, then by your criteria the scientific argument could never be subject to criticism because the comeback would be that we can't criticize it if it isn't fully understood.

Pretty neat. Just be vague and tentative and thus avoid criticism. Kind of the 'agnostic view of science' isn't it? Clever, but unacceptable.