Greg Jennings
New member
Time is connected to space. That's why it's called space-time. That's why clocks move slower inside a satellite orbiting Earth at high speed.
So yes, we absolutely know that time as we know it began when the universe did
creation vs evolution
- Thread starter jason69
- Start date
Time is connected to space. That's why it's called space-time. That's why clocks move slower inside a satellite orbiting Earth at high speed.
So yes, we absolutely know that time as we know it began when the universe did
Because there is nothing to debate. You are wrong on your basic facts and I really do not care to debate silly philosophy. I have asked for citations to your Einstein quote and you provide the silly movie.
No thanks. Enjoy your Gish GAllop, your "evidence" is lacking and what there is, is not scientific.
jsanford108
New member
I never mentioned Einstein. I believe you are referring to a different poster. Perhaps Interplanner, if I am not mistaken.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Interplanner
Well-known member
re supposedly silly philosophy:
It was Sartre who said 'the basic problem is that something is there. There shouldn't be anything there.' Thus begins essays on philosophy like Schaeffer's The Metaphysical Necessity. What Sartre meant was painfully logical, not silly. He meant that on the presuppositions given in uniformitarianism (Lewis' Nature--with cap N), nothing should exist. It is a huge problem, and there are very few metaphysical options to solve it. The only sensible answer is very close to the Christian one which never had a 'problem' in this area, even if you disagree about certain details like the age of the world.
It was Sartre who said 'the basic problem is that something is there. There shouldn't be anything there.' Thus begins essays on philosophy like Schaeffer's The Metaphysical Necessity. What Sartre meant was painfully logical, not silly. He meant that on the presuppositions given in uniformitarianism (Lewis' Nature--with cap N), nothing should exist. It is a huge problem, and there are very few metaphysical options to solve it. The only sensible answer is very close to the Christian one which never had a 'problem' in this area, even if you disagree about certain details like the age of the world.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Back on details:
Snelling's RADIOISOTOPES AND THE AGE OF THE EARTH causes several popular tenants of the age of the earth and universe to collapse.
Snelling's RADIOISOTOPES AND THE AGE OF THE EARTH causes several popular tenants of the age of the earth and universe to collapse.
Because by and large its not of the refutable kind. Furthermore, you've simply critiqued scientific theory without supplying nor answering to a viable alternative...unless of course we're to fully accept a generic god theory on pure faith and/or supposition alone.
Is this such a case?
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
RATE? Only a pimp from a cheap New Orleans whore house would buy into it.
jsanford108
New member
creation vs evolution
Not necessarily.
My purpose was solely to refute the commonly accepted theories (evolution, abiogenesis, and briefly Big Bang). Granted, to refute a theory, one should readily propose an alternative (as good practice); however, theories take time to develop.
The closest alternatives (to those I refuted with evidence) are Intelligent Design and Infinite Complexity. Intelligent Design would oppose all three common theories, and Infinite Complexity would only oppose Evolution.
By technical points, my accepted theories are "creationist;" however I (and the theories proposed) actually reject most common creationist theories due to natural evidence clearly disproving them (such as geology, biology, etc).
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Not necessarily.
My purpose was solely to refute the commonly accepted theories (evolution, abiogenesis, and briefly Big Bang). Granted, to refute a theory, one should readily propose an alternative (as good practice); however, theories take time to develop.
The closest alternatives (to those I refuted with evidence) are Intelligent Design and Infinite Complexity. Intelligent Design would oppose all three common theories, and Infinite Complexity would only oppose Evolution.
By technical points, my accepted theories are "creationist;" however I (and the theories proposed) actually reject most common creationist theories due to natural evidence clearly disproving them (such as geology, biology, etc).
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Yep, God started the clock !!!
I understand.
That's quite a rational approach though, not quite a satisfying one as it leaves a rather large cosmological elephant remaining in the room.
I certainly agree that science is, as of yet, woefully inadequate in explaining the origin of the universe (if explicable at all.) though I was just curious in discussing as to where our developing theories may diverge and/or the origin of "creationist" origination itself.
:e4e:
You are correct, I apologize.
jsanford108: Arguments against evolution are woeful. The mechanism is as understood as almost anything in biology. "examples" of irreducible complexity touted by intelligent design proponents have been shown to be less than convincing. If there are areas where particular biological pathways or function changes have not been nailed down, that does not mean they will not be or that such pathways or functions do not exist.
Sartre or not, it does exist. the universe is enormous, complicated and chaotic. The why it exists may well be unknowable but given what we understand of Nature, to accept, without question, the Genesis story of creation is not a question of philosophy but one of the level of either simple ignorance or cognitive dissonance.
eider
Well-known member
Hi......
We can't make our minds up about this just yet.
Physicist, Astronomers, Mathematicians etc are mostly in polite contention about how our Universe 'triggered' into being.
Some think that a single 'Big Bang' occurred from a singularity of energy.
Some think that a 'big Bounce' occured as a contracting Universe 'rebooted'
Some think that two giant (mem)Branes activate Universes wherever they touch.
Some think that as our Universe reaches 'photons only' stage that it re-triggers a new Universe.
Some think about the String Theory camp of genesis.
Some think that Universes are created within singularities of other Universes.
The most interesting so far is the discovery of Galaxies which are not moving in sync with their expected paths, which could mean that they are being influenced by masses beyond our Galaxy, maybe another Galaxy.
And so the only single fact that all can agree upon is that there is a REASON FOR OUR EXISTENCE.
Now you're only one step away from calling that reason 'God'.
This concept of another Universe automatically proposes 'billions of Universes' and onwards far beyond our comprehension. And there you are. God is truly great, and beyond our furthest imaginations.
Hi......
And so the only single fact that all can agree upon is that there is a REASON FOR OUR EXISTENCE.
Now you're only one step away from calling that reason 'God'.
No, I do not agree, there is no reason for existence.
Interplanner
Well-known member
I realize on one hand it sounds like a story because no modern science materials regularly refer to God as a factor. There is no rule that they cannot, because the time period in question cannot be 'repeated in a lab' anyway. You have to limit science to demonstrables, repeatables. On this question, I find modern science a failure for its explanations of geo-morphology. Too many things would not look the way they do after millions of years. Recent catastrophic plate tectonics satisfies that. CPT is in Genesis and in most antiquities and legends about massive flooding (about 500 accounts).
Even the science of geo-mythology began, says Mayor at Stanford, because of the need to explain seashells strewn all over the tops of highest mountains, whether the Colorado dome or the Himalayan. She's not referring to modern scientists explaining these things but the legends of antiquity themselves.
That is why Lewis said a person would not consult the mathematician about the aberrations in the coin accumulation; you would consult others. (The mathematician represents the uniformitarian).
Genesis is therefore definitely mainstream philosophy. Schaeffer's essay on this (its title) means that it is the necessary explanation, of which there are only a few choices; see his list. Gonzales et al in PRIVILEGED PLANET simply elaborated on this by showing that it was obviously designed to be observed--by scientists.
Interplanner
Well-known member
No one lives that way Jonah. Sartre already expressed your thought, that there is no reason because uniform causes and effects (as a closed system) cannot provide it. But I know of know one who actually thinks that way, and I deal with many people close to death in my medical work. A line from the Old Testament says "God has put eternity in their hearts." Only jaded scientists actually think the world is a closed system, and since Lyell they have try to impose that on society.
"The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever" stated the Westminster Confession from the 1700s. I'm not blanket-approving everything done by the Reformation, but they hit that one on the head. There is no metaphysical problem in the Christian faith because of that philosophical position.
Again, for one thing, the closed, uniformitarian system fails badly on geo-morphology; the shape of the earth structures indicates a recent and dramatic re-ordering of things. You'll find this in the Centralia theory about Australia, at Yosemite, at Grand Canyon, in the shape of the ridges of Patagonia, or the 400 lb Mayan calendar found randomly in sediment while excavating in downtown Brisbane, Australia, in the 90s (I think). Nearly 500 world legends refer to such re-ordering events. Before Mazama erupted and the great flood, says a Klamath account, there were white people.
While you have said "but it is there" you have to go a bit further and notice what Gonzales et al noticed; it is not 'mediocre.' It is there to be observed, and for us to feel privileged to do so.
eider
Well-known member
There is a reason for everything......for anything.
Ask any scientist.
Or maybe you're just not very scientific?
SonOfCaleb
Active member
I understand the theory behind space time in the physics, math model sense. But how do you account for the period of time that passed before the so called "Big Bang"? Time as i said is conceptual to individuals where time is relavent. Its not something thats strictly measurable. So does Science just ignore that 'time period' because its unknown and doesnt fit into their mainstream theory? How can you be so certain of your position when there is no scientific empiricism that can prove it?
SonOfCaleb
Active member
Do you understand the meaning of this term or are you just projecting? Virtually everyone in this thread is religious. EG Christian. I certainly don't suffer from any dissonance and have zero problem accepting the Genesis account. Id imagine that's the same for most other 'christians' on here to. This is after all a theology forum. So why would you make such simple binary statement that seem to lack any foresight other than the promulgation of your own dogma? Sounds like you also suffer from the same ignorance you're levelling at believers of the Genesis account.