Evolution? How?

Lacking evidence of what was before the "Big Bang", scientists have not yet determined what think may have preceded it. Not a problem. I do not fault them for this at all. You misread me if you think so.

What I have said is that once a position is taken, then whatever position is taken on this question, it will logically fall into one of two categories:

a) Matter/energy at some point had a beginning. They did not exist at some juncture and did exist thereafter, i.e. they were 'created'.

b) Matter/energy at no point had a beginning. They have always existed (in some form). There is no point at which matter/energy, or their predecessors in whatever form, did not exist, i.e. they were eternally pre-existent.

You don't need a doctorate to show that this is so.

real life wrote:

Lacking evidence of what was before the "Big Bang", scientists have not yet determined what think may have preceded it. Not a problem. I do not fault them for this at all. You misread me if you think so.

What I have said is that once a position is taken, then whatever position is taken on this question, it will logically fall into one of two categories:

a) Matter/energy at some point had a beginning. They did not exist at some juncture and did exist thereafter, i.e. they were 'created'.

b) Matter/energy at no point had a beginning. They have always existed (in some form). There is no point at which matter/energy, or their predecessors in whatever form, did not exist, i.e. they were eternally pre-existent.

You don't need a doctorate to show that this is so.

There is no point in taking a position without supporting evidence. To do so would be no more than a wag. Whether matter/energy had a beginning or were eternally extant has no bearing on evolution nor big bang possibility.

Terry responded all right. Let's take just one, OK? Terry thinks that a perfect being would not or could not sin. The idea is totally inconsistent with the concept of free will. It bespeaks his (and others) complete lack of understanding about what the Edenic rebellion is all about. I'm amazed at the number of a2kers who cannot wrap their minds around this fundamental point. Even if it were only allegorical, it still cannot be interpreted any other way.

]Terry responded all right. Let's take just one, OK? Terry thinks that a perfect being would not or could not sin. The idea is totally inconsistent with the concept of free will. It bespeaks his (and others) complete lack of understanding about what the Edenic rebellion is all about. I'm amazed at the number of a2kers who cannot wrap their minds around this fundamental point. Even if it were only allegorical, it still cannot be interpreted any other way.

Hi Brandon

Lacking evidence of what was before the "Big Bang", scientists have not yet determined what think may have preceded it. Not a problem. I do not fault them for this at all. You misread me if you think so.

What I have said is that once a position is taken, then whatever position is taken on this question, it will logically fall into one of two categories:

a) Matter/energy at some point had a beginning. They did not exist at some juncture and did exist thereafter, i.e. they were 'created'.

noelogist wrote:

Terry responded all right. Let's take just one, OK? Terry thinks that a perfect being would not or could not sin. The idea is totally inconsistent with the concept of free will. It bespeaks his (and others) complete lack of understanding about what the Edenic rebellion is all about. I'm amazed at the number of a2kers who cannot wrap their minds around this fundamental point. Even if it were only allegorical, it still cannot be interpreted any other way.

Complete lack of understanding, as you claim Terry possesses, is not a straw man, neo. By what you say, you seem to have an understanding of the Edenic rebellion that explains the contradiction, or apparent contradiction, of the concepts of perfection and free will. So how about not leaving it at merely claiming a straw man, and elucidating on your claim to this understanding.

One...Terry is not a "his"...Terry is a "her."

Two...I am amazed at the number of A2Kers who cannot see the Edenic rebellion for what it is...

...and example of a god setting up a sting.

Adam and Eve DID NOT KNOW RIGHT FROM WRONG...OR GOOD FROM EVIL.

The story tells us that they only learned those differences AFTER they ate fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Whoever wrote that particular fairytale screwed up.

It is absolutely amazing the number of A2Kers..who cannot wrap their minds around that obvious fact.

InfraBlue wrote:

noelogist wrote:

Terry responded all right. Let's take just one, OK? Terry thinks that a perfect being would not or could not sin. The idea is totally inconsistent with the concept of free will. It bespeaks his (and others) complete lack of understanding about what the Edenic rebellion is all about. I'm amazed at the number of a2kers who cannot wrap their minds around this fundamental point. Even if it were only allegorical, it still cannot be interpreted any other way.

Complete lack of understanding, as you claim Terry possesses, is not a straw man, neo. By what you say, you seem to have an understanding of the Edenic rebellion that explains the contradiction, or apparent contradiction, of the concepts of perfection and free will. So how about not leaving it at merely claiming a straw man, and elucidating on your claim to this understanding.

Frank Apisa wrote:

One...Terry is not a "his"...Terry is a "her."

Two...I am amazed at the number of A2Kers who cannot see the Edenic rebellion for what it is...

...and example of a god setting up a sting.

Adam and Eve DID NOT KNOW RIGHT FROM WRONG...OR GOOD FROM EVIL.

The story tells us that they only learned those differences AFTER they ate fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Whoever wrote that particular fairytale screwed up.

It is absolutely amazing the number of A2Kers..who cannot wrap their minds around that obvious fact.

Further discussion here: http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1607971#1607971

neologist wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

noelogist wrote:

Terry responded all right. Let's take just one, OK? Terry thinks that a perfect being would not or could not sin. The idea is totally inconsistent with the concept of free will. It bespeaks his (and others) complete lack of understanding about what the Edenic rebellion is all about. I'm amazed at the number of a2kers who cannot wrap their minds around this fundamental point. Even if it were only allegorical, it still cannot be interpreted any other way.

Complete lack of understanding, as you claim Terry possesses, is not a straw man, neo. By what you say, you seem to have an understanding of the Edenic rebellion that explains the contradiction, or apparent contradiction, of the concepts of perfection and free will. So how about not leaving it at merely claiming a straw man, and elucidating on your claim to this understanding.

Frank Apisa wrote:

One...Terry is not a "his"...Terry is a "her."

Two...I am amazed at the number of A2Kers who cannot see the Edenic rebellion for what it is...

...and example of a god setting up a sting.

Adam and Eve DID NOT KNOW RIGHT FROM WRONG...OR GOOD FROM EVIL.

The story tells us that they only learned those differences AFTER they ate fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Whoever wrote that particular fairytale screwed up.

It is absolutely amazing the number of A2Kers..who cannot wrap their minds around that obvious fact.

Further discussion here: http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1607971#1607971

I have no idea of what your linked passage has to do with what I said, Neo.

The Adam and Eve story is pathetic.

The god sets these two people in a garden that has a tree from which they are enjoined not to eat. Eating from the tree would give them the knowledge of good and evil. If they did not eat from it...they would not have that knowledge.

And the god allowed the greatest Tempter ever to have access to these people who had absolutely no idea of the difference between good and evil...right and wrong.

Eventually...as any fifth grader would guess they would...they ate of the fruit.

And the god not only punished them...but all the rest of humanity that would ever live on the planet.

Mind you...they did not even know they were doing anything wrong by disobeying...because they did not know the difference between good and evil...between right and wrong...but the god punished them and all of humankind for all time to come for this single action.

If that is a parable designed to teach a lesson, Neo...

...the only lesson anyone with a brain could possibly come away from it with is that the god is a scumbag....and probably a duplicitous, vengeful, psychopathic scumbag at that.

There is no point in taking a position without supporting evidence.

Let's leave out the concepts of free will and conscience and see what we get.

Another point worth mentioning: creationists keep claiming that something can't come from nothing when they argue evolution. If that's the case, who created god?

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.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Another point worth mentioning: creationists keep claiming that something can't come from nothing when they argue evolution. If that's the case, who created god?

C.I.,

We have already told you the answer to that. God is the Alpha and the Omega. He always has been and always will be. It's just that simple.

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.

c.i.'s post reminded me that I had missed replying to this one.

real life, I am saying that if it is valid for you to conjur up "an eternally pre-existent Creator whose actions produced the universe (Creation)" then it is equally valid to propose an eternally pre-existant universe that needed no creator.

Are you serious? Well, I would suppose that since Jesus called God Father, that makes me believe He is a He.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Another point worth mentioning: creationists keep claiming that something can't come from nothing when they argue evolution. If that's the case, who created god?

C.I.,

We have already told you the answer to that. God is the Alpha and the Omega. He always has been and always will be. It's just that simple.

mesquite wrote:

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.

c.i.'s post reminded me that I had missed replying to this one.

real life, I am saying that if it is valid for you to conjur up "an eternally pre-existent Creator whose actions produced the universe (Creation)" then it is equally valid to propose an eternally pre-existant universe that needed no creator.

I'll go along with equally valid. I think both the idea of Creation by an incredibly intelligent and eternally pre-existent God and the idea of random generation of complex systems and organisms by eternally pre-existent matter and blind chance are both ideas that are statements of faith, since no human being has actually observed either or has anything more direct than circumstantial evidence and inference to support the idea.