• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Present a BETTER explanation for our existence than God

Status
Not open for further replies.
arg-fallbackName="Japhia888"/>
ragnarokx297 said:
To me, it seems that your using words like "it seems conservative to say" to hide the fact that you guys don't have actual probabilities and are just pulling them out of your ...
But I could definitely be wrong, so maybe you can actually explain where you get these probabilities from that leads you to eventually claim fine tuning, I'd even accept a link that shows the actual math.

http://academic.udayton.edu/WilliamRichards/Intro%20essays/Collins,%20Fine-tuning.htm

Probably the most widely discussed among physicists and cosmologists,and esoteric,is the fine-tuning of what is known as the cosmological constant. The cosmological constant was a term that Einstein included in his central equation of his theory of gravity,that is, general relativity,which today is thought to correspond to the energy density of empty space. A positive cosmological constant acts as a sort of antigravity, a repulsive force causing space itself to expand. If the cosmological constant had a significant positive value, space would expand so rapidly that all matter would quickly disperse, and thus galaxies, stars, and even small aggregates of matter could never form. The upshot is that it must fall exceedingly close to zero for complex life to be possible in our universe.

Now, the fundamental theories of particle physics set a natural range of values for the cosmological constant. This natural range of values, however, is at least 1053 that is, one followed by fifty-three zeros,times the range of life-permitting values. That is, if 0 to L represent the range of life-permitting values, the theoretically possible range of values is at least 0 to 1053 L. 2 To intuitively see what this means, consider a dartboard analogy: suppose that we had a dartboard that extended across the entire visible galaxy, with a bull's eye on the dartboard of less than an inch in diameter. The amount of fine-tuning of the cosmological constant could be compared to randomly throwing a dart at the board and landing exactly in the bull's-eye!


Scientists and others call this extraordinary balancing of the fundamental physical structure of the universe for life the "fine-tuning of the cosmos." It has been extensively discussed by philosophers, theologians, and scientists, especially since the early 1970s, with many articles and books written on the topic. Today, many consider it as providing the most persuasive current argument for the existence of God. For example, theoretical physicist and popular science writer Paul Davies claims that with regard to basic structure of the universe, "the impression of design is overwhelming" (Davies, 1988, p. 203).

Many examples of this fine-tuning can be given.1 One particularly important category of fine-tuning is that of the constants of physics. The constants of physics are a set of fundamental numbers that, when plugged into the laws of physics, determine the basic structure of the universe. An example of such a constant is the gravitational constant G that is part of Newton's law of gravity, F = GM1M2/r2. G essentially determines the strength of gravity between two masses. If one were to double the value of G, for instance, then the force of gravity between any two masses would double.

So far, physicists have discovered four forces in nature,gravity, the weak force, electromagnetism, and the strong nuclear force that binds protons and neutrons together in an atom. Each of these forces has its own coupling constant that determines its strength, in analogy to the gravitational constant C. Using one of the standard dimensionless measures of force strengths (Barrow and Tipler, 1986, pp. 293-295), gravity is the weakest of the forces, and the strong nuclear force is the strongest, being a factor of 1040 -- or ten thousand billion, billion, billion, billion,times stronger than gravity.

Various calculations show that the strength of each of the forces of nature must fall into a very small life-permitting region for intelligent life to exist. As our first example, consider gravity. If we increased the strength of gravity on earth a billion-fold, for instance, the force of gravity would be so great that any land-based organism anywhere near the size of human beings would be crushed. (The strength of materials depends on the electromagnetic force via the fine structure constant, which would not be affected by a change in gravity.) As astrophysicist Martin Rees notes "In an imaginary strong gravity world, even insects would need thick legs to support them, and no animals could get much larger." (Rees, 2000, p. 30). Now, the above argument assumes that the size of the planet on which life formed would be an earth-sized planet. Could life forms of comparable intelligence to ourselves develop on a much smaller planet in such a strong-gravity world? The answer is no. A planet with a gravitational pull of a thousand times that of earth, which would make the existence of organisms of our size very improbable,would have a diameter of about 40 feet or 12 meters, once again not large enough to sustain the sort of large-scale ecosystem necessary for organisms like us to evolve. Of course, a billion-fold increase in the strength of gravity is a lot, but compared to the total range of strengths of the forces in nature (which span a range of 1040 as we saw above), this still amounts to a fine-tuning of one part in 1031.

On the other hand, if the strong force were slightly increased the existence of complex life would be seriously inhibited, if not rendered impossible. For instance, using the latest equations and codes for stellar evolution and nucleosynthesis, Heinz Oberhummer, et al., showed that a small increase in the strong force,by as little as 1 percent,would drastically decrease, by thirty to a thousandfold, the total amount of oxygen formed in stars (Oberhummer, et. al, 2000, p. 88). Since the oxygen on planets comes from previous stars that have exploded or blown off their outer layers, this means that very little oxygen would be available for the existence of carbon-based life. At the very least, this would have a life-inhibiting effect given the many important, and seemingly irreplaceable, roles oxygen plays in living processes, such as that of being essential for water (Denton, 1998, pp. 19-47, 117-140). Other arguments can be given for the other two forces,the electromagnetic force and the weak force,being fine-tuned, but we do not have space to provide the evidence here. (See, however, my "Evidence for Fine-Tuning" in God and Design, Neil Manson (ed), Routledge, Forthcoming.)
 
arg-fallbackName="Japhia888"/>
TheFlyingBastard said:
Japhia888 said:
So you believe the universe has existed without beginning, eternally ? so how about the energy and second law of thermodynamics ?
The law of thermodynamics is irrelevant because the universe has not always been in this state.

So in what state was it ?
Japhia888 said:
and the impossibility to have infinity in reality ?
Prove it.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/philosophy-and-god-f14/philosophy-of-time-t178.htm

Why can't the past be infinite? The answer is that it is impossible to complete an infinite series by addition. The series of past events is complete. Think of this mathematical fact. Why is it impossible to count to infinity? It is impossible because, no matter how long you count, you will always be at a finite number. It is impossible to complete an actual infinite by successive addition.

The past is complete. This claim means that the entire series of past events ends now. It ends today. Tomorrow is not part of the series of past events. The series of past events does not extend into the future. It is complete at the present. If it is impossible to complete an infinite series by successive addition (as it is impossible to count to infinity) the past cannot be infinite. If the past is finite., that is, if it had a beginning, then the universe had a beginning. We have strong philosophical reason to reject the claim that the universe has always existed.
But, lets keep your answer as valid : what mechanism do you suggest for the occurrence of the first life ?
See page 1 and 2 of this thread. There's your answer for better explanations than God Did It.

i have not aknowledged any.
 
arg-fallbackName="Japhia888"/>
nemesiss said:
god CANNOT EXIST without time.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/dimensions.html

The State of God

To exist outside of time has another implication. If you existed outside of time, it would mean that there are no 'frames' of you that change snapshot-by-snapshot. If you are not part of time, and changing, viewing it from within, then you are outside of time viewing everything from the outside.

"I the LORD do not change."
Malachi 3:6

Without change-over-time, any eternal being is immutable. There are no frames, no changes over time. In other words: No progress, no retreat, no changes of mind, no learning, no psychology, no changing of emotions and no active thought. A being outside of time exists as one instant, one snapshot only (like our 2D painting in a 3D world; constant). Emotions, thought, planning, progress and all those other things require change over time. Knowledge, also, would be absolute.

Nothing new could be learned because everything that is real and true exists in the 4D object that the being outside-of-time sees all at once. A creator-god who created the universe would exist in a very strange state. This being would exist, forever, viewing the universe that it created as a single 4D object that itself doesn't change over time. All of reality, everything, is 'there', not 'happening' now, but merely existing in reality. Nothing in the world could ever surprise an eternal creator, just like the stickman will never do anything that the child hasn't already seen.

This explanation, going through all the dimensions, truly gives an idea of how a being could indeed be all-knowing about everything that goes on in the universe, but such a being lives in a sad state of eternal immutability. This ties in with one other commonly-cited feature of God: its perfection. If a being is perfect, it cannot change. God's all-knowing nature, the eternality of its existence outside of time, its status as an outside creator of the universe and finally its status as a perfect being, each predict that God is unchanging. William James calls this the lack of 'potential' for God:

"This absence of all potentiality in God obliges Him to be immutable. [...] Were there anything potential about Him, He would either lose or gain by its actualization, and either loss or gain would contradict his perfection. He cannot, therefore, change."

Chance was and still is NEVER an element in the equation of life.

what else do you suggest therefore ?

well, the thoughts in your brain is also information.
unfortunately, we can't copy the exact context from a brain.

if you express them with words, they can be copied.
as for the interpertation of patterns, ever heard of braille?
to many it many be just a bunch of dot's, but for blind people it's means access to the world.

braille is a language. Is information upon common agreement. Its not just a pattern.
Similar to humans, we can trace the course of language of humans through history.
our main source books, cloths, pots clay tablets, etc... anything that was used to write on.

the oldest languages known to us are even more complex than modern ones. Your argument fails to adress, how language could be result of evolution.
 
arg-fallbackName="Japhia888"/>
borrofburi said:
This is a copout, a fancy way to try to dodge the problem, but it doesn't work. "timeless eternity" is a meaningless phrase (if it's not, please rigidly define it; or, more precisely, as has been pointed out, please propose what it means to "exist" "outside of time", because all definitions of existence that I know of include a time element); it's rather like saying "this object is blue outside of colour" or "this object is green without light".

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/philosophy-and-god-f14/what-is-timeless-eternity-t296.htm#1298

Eternity is the simultaneous possession of boundless life which is made clearer by comparison with temporal things.

This becomes clear when we consider temporal things: whatever lives in time lives only in the present, which passes from the past into the future, and no temporal thing has such a nature that it can simultaneously embrace its entire existence, for it has not yet arrived at tomorrow and no longer exists in yesterday.

We cannot be considered eternal: Even one's life today exists only in each and every transient moment. Therefore, anything which exists in time"¦ cannot properly be considered eternal, for anything in time does not embrace the infinity of life all at once, since it does not embrace the future or the past.

Since every intellect understands according to its own nature, and since God lives in an eternal present, with no past or future, his knowledge transcends the movement of time and exists only in a single, simple, unified present.


http://vintage.aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html

John 1:1 In the beginning 1 was the Word, and the Word was with God, 2 and the Word was fully God. 3 1:2 The Word 4 was with God in the beginning. 1:3 All things were created 5 by him, and apart from him not one thing was created 6 that has been created.

To understand what John is saying, we must delve into the verses themselves and analyze them carefully. We must bear in mind that we are reading only a translation of what John wrote, and hence some mention will have to be made of the Greek language.

John's first assertion is that "In the beginning was the Word." Which beginning? Considering the whole context of the prologue, many have identified this beginning as the same beginning mentioned in Genesis 1:1. But most see that the assertion of the Apostle goes far beyond that.

The key element in understanding this, the first phrase of this magnificent verse, is the form of the word "was," which in the Greek language in which John was writing, is the word en (the "e" pronounced as a long "a" as in "I ate the food"). It is a timeless word - that is, it simply points to existence before the present time without reference to a point of origin. One can push back the "beginning" as far as you can imagine, and, according to John, the Word still is. Hence, the Word is eternal, timeless. The Word is not a creation that came into existence at "the beginning," for He antedates that beginning.
Again "without beginning and without end"; why introduce god? Why not instead save ourselves a complexity step and presume that the universe (i.e. all there is) has existed in some form or another in some sort of "timeless eternity"?

because of several reasons :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/evidence-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning-t199.htm

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html

The Big Bang marking the beginning of the universe is amazing when one reflects on the fact that a state of "infinite density" is synonymous to "nothing." There can be no object that possesses infinite density, for if it had any size at all it could still be even more dense. Therefore, as Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle points out, the Big Bang Theory requires the creation of matter from nothing. This is because as one goes back in time, one reaches a point at which, in Hoyle's words, the universe was "shrunk down to nothing at all."


http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/What%20is%20infinity.htm

Strictly speaking, according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, a singularity does not contain anything that is actually infinite, only things that MOVE MATHEMATICALLY TOWARDS infinity. A black hole is formed when large stars collapse and their mass has been compressed down to a very small size and the powerful gravitational field so formed prevents anything, even light, from escaping from it. A black hole therefore forms a singularity at its centre from the concentrated mass of the collapsed star itself and from the accumulated mass that is sucked into it. A singularity's mass is therefore finite, the 'infinity' refers only to the maths.

Can we have an infinite universe for example? The answer is no, the universe is finite.

Alexander Vilenkin is Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers and is responsible for introducing the ideas of eternal inflation and quantum creation of the universe from nothing.

Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/If_the_Big_Bang_came_from_a_singularity_where_did_the_singularity_come_from

Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know.

http://thoughtlife.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/the-kalam-cosmological-argument-part-1-scientific-observations/

Stephen Hawking writes, "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.

The Universe is Not Eternal, But Had A Beginning

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/beginning.html

Moreover, you have yet to encounter the other problems with a god not existing in time: that by its very nature means god is unchanging, yet SOMETHING had to change for such a being to decide to create something and to interact with beings who live inside time.

you might not like Craig, but what he says, makes a lot of sense to me.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5673

If God is timeless, is He incapable of creating a universe? Is He somehow imprisoned in timelessness, frozen into immobility? I see no reason to think so. The claim that if God is timeless, it is impossible for Him to create the universe is based upon the assumption that timelessness is an essential, rather than contingent, property of God. But as in the case of the color of the house, I see no reason to think that God's being timeless or temporal cannot be a contingent property of God, dependent upon His will. Existing timelessly alone without the universe, He can will to refrain from creation and so remain timeless; or He can will to create the universe and become temporal at the first exercise of His causal power. It's up to Him.

So on the view I propose, God exists timelessly without the universe with a timeless intention to create a universe with a beginning. He exercises His causal power, and time as a result comes into being, along with the first state of the universe, and God freely enters into time. It all happens co-incidentally, that is, together at once. This is, I own, a mind-boggling conclusion, but makes better sense to me than the alternatives.
First: you've moved the goalposts. Second: please define, in a rigid matter, the difference between "pattern" and "information", and please specify how a "pattern" does not contain information (because, damn, I wonder why my grandma's always takling about buying fancy new crocheting patterns if there's no information contained in them...).

sorry to post just a link, but this website explains it better than i could :

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis2.htm
The answer is: the way Marshall and other IDers (and young earth cerationists) do this "information has to come from an intelligence" game is to do it buy (1) borrowing terminology from information theory and (2) IGNORING the rigid definition of "information". They NEVER define "information" in a rigorous manner, and instead dance around it and make bold claims that are entirely insubstantial and unfalsifiable without a rigid agreed upon definition of information.

that is simply not true.


http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/origin-of-life-how-did-life-arise-on-earth-f2/information-evidence-for-a-creator-t287.htm#997

Fundamental Law 1 (FL1)

A purely material entity, such as physicochemical processes, cannot create a nonmaterial entity. (Something material cannot create something nonmaterial.)
Physical entities include mass and energy (matter). Examples of something that is not material (nonmaterial entity) include thought, spirit, and volition (will).

Fundamental Law 2 (FL2)

Information is a nonmaterial fundamental entity and not a property of matter.
The information recorded on a CD is nonmaterial. If you weigh a modern blank CD, fill it with information, and weigh it again, the two weights will be the same. Likewise, erasing the information on the CD has no effect on the weight.
The same information can be transmitted on a CD, a book, a whiteboard, or using smoke signals. This means the information is independent of the material source. A material object is required to store information, but the information is not part of the material object. Much like people in an airplane are being stored and transferred in the plane, they are not part of the physical plane.
The first law of thermodynamics makes it clear that mass and energy (matter) can neither be created nor destroyed. All mass and energy in the universe is being conserved (the total sum is constant). However, someone can write a new complicated formula on a whiteboard and then erase the formula. This is a case of creating and destroying information.

Since the first law of thermodynamics states that mass and energy (matter) cannot be created or destroyed, and information (UDI) can be created and destroyed, information (UDI) must be nonmaterial.
The genetic information system is the software of life and, like the symbols in a computer, is purely symbolic and independent of its environment. Of course, the genetic message, when expressed as a sequence of symbols, is nonmaterial but must be recorded in matter and energy.5

Indeed, Einstein pointed to the nature and origin of symbolic information as one of the profound questions about the world as we know it. He could identify no means by which matter could bestow meaning to symbols. The clear implication is that symbolic information, or language, represents a category of reality distinct from matter and energy.6

First Law of Information (LI1)

Information cannot originate in statistical processes. (Chance plus time cannot create information no matter how many chances or how much time is available.)
There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.7

Second Law of Information (LI2)

Information can only originate from an intelligent sender
Corollary 18
All codes result from an intentional choice and agreement between sender and recipient.

We observe daily a continual input of new information (UDI) from an intelligent source (human beings). At present, on earth, the only new information we have detected being created is from human beings. Careful examination of other systems will determine if there are any other intelligent sources of new UDI.

Any given chain of information can be traced backward to an intelligent source.

For two people to effectively communicate, there must be some agreement on the language or code that is used.

Law of Matter about Machines (LM1)

When information (UDI) is utilized in a material domain, it always requires a machine.
Definition of a machine: A machine is a material device that uses energy to perform a specific task.

Information is required for the design and construction of machines.
What does this mean? Both information (UDI) and matter are necessary for the development of a machine. It is the information that determines and directs the assembly of the material system into the necessary configuration, thereby creating a machine. This means that tracing backward to the manufacture and design of any machine capable of performing useful work will lead to the discovery or necessity of information and ultimately to its intelligent source.
Testing UDI Universally (Living Systems)

Does the code in all living systems (DNA) exhibit all four attributes of Universal Definition of Information (UDI)?

Since all living systems contain DNA and DNA information contains all four attributes, it meets the UDI definition of information.

Furthermore, the capacity and density of the information encoded in DNA surpasses anything mankind has accomplished.

There is no information system designed by man that can even begin to compare to it [DNA]

The decoded portion of DNA contains 4 letters (ATCG) that make up three-letter words (codon). These codons are arranged linearly in a various sequence (syntax).

Meaning Each three-letter word represents 1 of the 20 specific amino acids used in life. The sequence (syntax) of the DNA words designates the specific sequence of the amino acids in protein formation.

Cellular proteins are biomachines essential for construction, function, maintenance, and reproduction of the entire organism

The information encoded in DNA is billions of times more compact than a modern PC hard drive.

How long would it take using naturalistic processes to type out such a code?
A billion universes each populated by billions of typing monkeys could not type out a single gene of this genome.



But a purposeful, all-knowing, all-powerful Creator could create complex codes in less than a day.

Ah Lord God! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee (Jeremiah 32:17).

The information team agreed upon a precise definition of information (UDI) that is consistent with the information found in human natural languages and in machine languages. Additionally, scientific laws that govern the UDI definition domain were established. It was agreed that the information encoded within the DNA belongs to the UDI domain.


If we apply these laws governing UDI to DNA information, we can make logically sound arguments (conclusions).

Since the DNA code of all life-forms is clearly within the UDI definition domain of information, we conclude there must be a sender (LI 1, 2).

Since the density and complexity of the DNA encoded information is billions of times greater than man's present technology, we conclude the sender must be supremely intelligent

Since the sender must have encoded (stored) the information into the DNA molecules
constructed the molecular biomachines required for the encoding, decoding, and synthesizing processes designed all the features for the original life-forms
we conclude the sender must be purposeful and supremely powerful

Since information is a nonmaterial fundamental entity and cannot originate from purely material quantities, we conclude the sender must have a nonmaterial component (Spirit). God is Spirit

Since information is a nonmaterial fundamental entity and cannot originate from purely material quantities, and since information also originates from man, we conclude man's nature must have a nonmaterial component (spirit). Man has a spirit

Since information is nonmaterial and the third fundamental entity, we conclude that the assumption "the universe is composed solely of mass and energy" is false

The philosophy of materialism is false!

Since all theories of chemical and biological evolution require that information must originate solely from mass and energy alone (no sender), we conclude all theories of chemical and biological evolution are false

The evolution of life is false!

Therefore, the scientific laws governing the UDI domain have
Refuted the presupposition of atheism, humanism, and the like, including the theories of chemical and biological evolution.
Confirmed the existence of an eternal, all-knowing, all-powerful being (God).

Summary

The importance of information to the creation/evolution debate is founded in the presuppositions of each model. The presupposition of the evolutionary model is materialism, which is the idea that everything in the universe is solely comprised of matter (mass and energy). From this foundational assumption, evolutionists logically conclude that cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, and biological evolution are all true. The presupposition of materialism has been shown scientifically to be false.
The presupposition of the Bible is that there is a God who created the universe, the earth, and all organisms living on earth. This has been shown to be consistent with scientific discoveries that there is a nonmaterial third fundamental entity called information that originates only from an intelligent source. The universe consists of more than just mass and energy, and the information found within the DNA system of all life originated from an all-knowing, all-powerful Creator God.

The Challenge

Anyone who disagrees with these laws and conclusions must falsify them by demonstrating the initial origin of information from purely material sources. This challenge has never been scientifically achieved.
 
arg-fallbackName="Japhia888"/>
Rivius said:
...What? Why... ? Does that mean you're a creationist then? Explain your position on evolution more fully then.

absolutely. I am a creationist. I believe micro-evolution is true. Is a fact. Macro-evolution is not. Said already in this thread.
 
arg-fallbackName="Japhia888"/>
lrkun said:
A person who chose to close his or her mind will only learn to see the obvious reality of things when he or she chooses to open his or her mind.

and how about you ?
 
arg-fallbackName="Rivius"/>
Japhia888 said:
Rivius said:
...What? Why... ? Does that mean you're a creationist then? Explain your position on evolution more fully then.

absolutely. I am a creationist. I believe micro-evolution is true. Is a fact. Macro-evolution is not. Said already in this thread.
But why? You have christian scientists like Michael Behe, and even apologists like William Lane Craig who can't seem to shake the evidence for it. Why do you?

I just want to know your reasons for it.
 
arg-fallbackName="Japhia888"/>
he_who_is_nobody said:
Japhia888 said:
And why should it be scientific, and be testable through operational science ?
Well, if it is not natural and un-testable than there is really no way of knowing about it. Science has been the only way humans have been able to observe the world around us and find real answers.

Science is far of being able to give answers to all relevant questions we have. Why should only science be a valid way to find these answers. Why not filosophy, and religion ?
Japhia888 said:
can you test macro-evolution ? no ? so why do you believe, its true ?
Actually yes. We have tested macroevolution in both the field and the lab. Macroevolution is simply change between species, which we have observed. Microevolution is change within a species.
Tell me, can you even define evolution in a biological context? The reason I am asking this is that the people that argue against evolution are usually the people that know the least about it. In addition, this statement from you leads me to believe that you have never researched this subject.

speciation is NOT macro-evolution.

Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.

Japhia888 said:
What features of the natural world are better explained with Genesis?

all of them. ;)
 
arg-fallbackName="Rivius"/>
Don't mean to be annoying here and appeal to authority but :



and the same Wikipedia you quoted from....
Misuse
Main article: Objections to evolution
See also: Speciation

The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution"), but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution").[1] Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.[10] The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community.
 
arg-fallbackName="lrkun"/>
Because only science gives results. Philosophy or religion offer nothing in comparison to science.

The following are some of the things which science has to offer, but not limited to these alone:

(1) Electricity;

(2) The computer that you are using; and

(3) Medicine.
 
arg-fallbackName="Japhia888"/>
Rivius said:
I just want to know your reasons for it.

i explain it here :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/darwin-s-theory-of-evolution-f3/has-macro-evolution-been-proved-observed-t80.htm

DNA is very important because it finally provides us with a very precise definition of micro and macro evolution. Macro evolution can only be defined as an organism acquiring, through mutation, a completely new gene which was not present in any of that organisms ancestors. If a new phenotype (physical structure) is caused by a gene which was present but recessive in any of the parent organisms, then that must be micro evolution.

A good example of micro evolution would be if our little tribe of people who all had brown eyes but had the "hidden" trait for blue eyes caused by a "recessive" gene, went off to some isolated area and lived out of touch with any other people. Over a period of generations, due to death, disease, or what ever, we bred out all of the genes for brown eyes so that we only had the genes for blue eyes and everyone now has only blue eyes. This can only be defined as micro evolution because the gene for blue eyes was already present in the parent organisms. Micro evolution works fine with both creation and evolution models. The debate is about macro evolution and not micro evolution.

For macro evolution to occur, our tribe would have to have never had or had reproductive contact with people who had the gene for blue eyes and, through mutation of the gene for brown eyes, we acquire a gene for blue eyes. We don't have any biological proof of this having ever occurred and this is what the debate is about.

Over the decades that I have considered the creation/evolution debate, I have asked numerous biologists if they have ever known of even one such gene mutation that was 100% positive in nature (meaning that there were no negative side effects such as having the genes for eyes, ears, fingers, toes, and etc.) None of us have ever heard of such a new gene. The best evolutionists can do is the gene for sickle-cell anemia and they hang onto this as an example of positive mutation for proof of evolution. This is in spite of the fact that 25% of the recipients for this mutation (the ones who receive the gene from both parents) are killed by the disorder it causes. Evolutionists claim this as a positive trait because the people who receive the gene from just one parent have an increased resistance to malaria. They forget to tell you that only 50% of the offspring receive the resistance while 50% are either killed by the gene or don't receive the resistance. I don't know of anyone who thinks this is such a good gene that everyone should have it like the genes for eyes, ears, or fingers. If this is such a great mutation, why do we have a national organization to help people who have it?
 
arg-fallbackName="lrkun"/>
Japhia888 said:
lrkun said:
and how about you ?

adress what you said to yourself :idea:

What did I say to myself? You're the one who said how about you. My answer to such is, it is a secret. :lol:

Seriously, you need to pay attention to the obvious. Everything which surrounds you are products of science.
 
arg-fallbackName="ragnarokx297"/>
Japhia888 said:
http://academic.udayton.edu/WilliamRichards/Intro%20essays/Collins,%20Fine-tuning.htm

Probably the most widely discussed among physicists and ...

Well, thanks for replying but it doesn't seem like you understood what my problem was, I already know pretty much all the general info you quoted from the link. I have no problems with how the figures like 10^40 and 10^53 are arrived at, but these numbers are not probabilities, that's the only thing I wanted. Reading the rest of the link, it still shows no math to get any actual probabilities like I suggested, but I did find 2 lines that actually addresses the problem I have.

"Another problem is the total theoretically possible range R of values a constant of physics could have. This is a difficult issue beyond the scope of this paper to address. Here we simply note that often one can make plausible estimates of a lower bound for the theoretically possible range,for example, since the actual range of forces in nature span a range of 1040, the value of 1040 provides a natural lower bound for the theoretically possible range of forces strengths."

So I guess I'll do a bit of research into these bounds to see how justified limiting them from infinity is...
 
arg-fallbackName="Japhia888"/>
lrkun said:
Because only science gives results. Philosophy or religion offer nothing in comparison to science.

The following are some of the things which science has to offer, but not limited to these alone:

(1) Electricity;

(2) The computer that you are using; and

(3) Medicine.

What you need to find, is a solid world view, which is coherent and rational. If there only science and consequently materialism, of which it relies, shall be reliable, then it should be consisente in itself, and pass following test :

http://worldview3.50webs.com/

The Three Truth-Tests
Logical thinking allows us to list three distinctive qualities which test the truthfulness of any worldview:

FIRST, an adequate worldview must be consistent within itself, and non-contradictory. Any contradiction is a definite indication that the worldview contains at least some untruth; And if the contradiction involves an essential element of the worldview, then the worldview must be false, having failed the first truth-test.

SECOND, an adequate worldview must fit basically all the relevant facts and data of reality and human experience. The worldview which accounts for the greatest number of facts, with the fewest difficulties, has the highest probability of being a worldview which is true. A worldview which is inconsistent with human experience and with the empirical facts of history, nature and the universe, fails the second truth-test.

THIRD, an adequate worldview must be subjectively satisfactory and livable on an every-day basis. We must ask: When a man is done talking and "philosophizing" about the nature of his worldview, can he consistently live it out, and does he actually practice it in his daily life? ...If not, then the actions of his life reveal his true inner conviction of the untruth of his professed worldview ...that it is not livable, and therefore, by his actions he rejects his own worldview --so that it fails the third truth-test.

and materialism and naturalism fails this test.

The Worldview of Naturalism: Matter Only
(& Atheism)

Although many people are content with the worldview of Naturalism, many others have concluded that it is self-contradictory and inconsistent, it does not fit many facts of science and human experience, and it is not lived out by those who hold it. In several ways it fails the (Truth-Tests.) we've outlined.
The first proposition we've listed for naturalism states that "Matter/Energy is all there is for eternity,..." and if this is true, then the totality of man is only matter. If there is some degree of consciousness and thought in the brain of man, that thinking is still only a result of matter's properties. Why would these "thoughts" produced by matter (the chemical brain of man) correspond to the truth of reality? Matter has no known interest in truth. Why should chemicals be able to distinguish illusion from reality, since there is no rational and purposive cause for the existence of man or his mind,? ...Of course, naturalists may appeal to scientific inquiry and the laws of logical thought. But this begs the question, because it is the chemical brain which is "thinking" and using the scientific method and the laws of thought ...all of which might still be an illusion, and not reality. C.S.Lewis quotes Prof. Haldane as saying, "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms" ("Miracles", p.18). This may be like the motion of atoms to create "thoughts" in a computer ...what is to determine whether those computer "thoughts" are true or not? If naturalism is right, and matter is all there is, then even our "thoughts" about thinking and the brain and everything else may be nothing but illusion.

Epistemology is the study of the basis and validity of knowledge, ---and it is because of its inability to know anything for sure, that the worldview of naturalism is self-contradictory, and fails the first truth test. Naturalism logically creates an epistemological vacuum, in which man can never know anything for sure. Informed and consistent naturalism results in epistemological nihilism.

The philosophical naturalist (who is consistent) cannot know anything for sure, and yet the first proposition of naturalism makes statements as if they know that "matter is all there is" and that "no supernatural God exists". So, even though the philosophical naturalist does not know that his thinking bears any relationship to reality, still he often audaciously declares that he knows so much that he can categorically rule out the existence of something spiritual. The inconsistency and illogic in such assertions are obvious.

The second "Truth-Test" we've established for Worldviews, states that "an adequate worldview must fit virtually all the relevant facts and data of reality and human experience." In this regard, naturalism also has major problems. For example, there is excellent evidence for "intelligent design" in living things, which is skillfully brought out by Dr. Michael Behe of Lehigh University, in his book "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution." This evidence of intelligent design in nature, indicates beyond a reasonable doubt that there is some sort of super-human intelligence which has engineered at least some sophisticated molecular machines on the cellular level, such as cilia, flagella, DNA, many proteins, etc. The evidence shows that the material universe is actually not a "closed" system unto itself, but rather, it has been acted on from the outside. Naturalism has no good answer for these things, because Darwinist evolution has totally failed to explain how such molecular mechanisms could have developed gradually by any naturalistic evolutionary mechanisms. Even worse, is the naturalistic attempts to explain the origin of the first form of life, as Behe says, "a choking complexity strangles all such attempts" (p.177). In this regard, naturalism is a dismal failure.

In addition, naturalism has no adequate explanation for the fact of a large number of fulfilled prophetic predictions in the Bible, which clearly indicate the "knowledge" and "management" of the course of history by a super-intelligence. Also, there is the life of Jesus Christ, along with all the claims that he made, as well as the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which was seen by more than 500 people who lived to verify it for 40 years, and it was reported in writing by more than six individuals who recorded the history independently of each other.

With regard to the third "Truth-Test" concerning the "livability" of a worldview, if the universe is a "closed" system, being only governed from within, then every event and everything else is caused as a necessary result and effect of what came before. Though we may be incapable of predicting what will happen in the future, the future is absolutely certain, and totally determined by the present state of matter in the universe. Man may "think" he is an agent of free choice, but any notion of free agency is actually a self-deception. There cannot actually be any meaningful sort of "free will" in the worldview of naturalism. As a result, there is no logic to thinking that man could possibly be responisble for his actions. Man is basically a highly evolved "bacteria," in essence, and it is nonsense to say that a bacteria "ought" to do one thing as opposed to something else. But people don't live their lives this way, since everyone, including naturalists, has expectations of how people ought to live and treat one another. In addition, man in naturalism also could not do or be anything which is significant, valuable or meaningful. What is there to convey that significance or value? If no spiritual part of man survives his physical body, he will not care or be aware of anything done in life, whether "good" or "bad", which are meaningless terms in the naturalist worldview. But this is not how people, including naturalists, live their lives. They reveal that naturalism fails the third "Truth-Test".

What is the final outcome then? If a person is consistently a naturalist, he proceeds into nihilism. Nihilism says that no one can know anything for sure, so no statement can be valid ...and nothing has any value, meaning or significance, good or bad. Regarding this, Dr. James W. Sire writes, "One of the awfulest consequences of taking epistemological nihilism seriously is that it has led some to question the very facticity of the universe. To some, nothing is real, not even themselves. When a person reaches this state, he is in deep trouble, for he can no longer function as a human being. Or, as we often say, he can't cope. ---We usually do not recognize this situation as metaphysical or epistemological nihilism. Rather, we call it schizophrenia, hallucination, fantasizing, daydreaming or living in a dream world. And we "treat" the person as a "case," the problem as a "disease." (Ref. "The Universe Next Door", J. Sire, Inter-Varsity, Downers Grove, p.87). So, some people who take their naturalism absolutely seriously and to its logical conclusion, have proceeded into mental and emotional breakdown.

Although most people with the worldview of naturalism do not take it to its logical end, obviously, they still prefer to remain in that failed philosophical system because they are uncomfortable with another alternative ...especially the option of considering God. However, it is the hope of this web page to challenge people to reconsider.
 
arg-fallbackName="he_who_is_nobody"/>
Japhia888 said:
Why should only science be a valid way to find these answers. Why not filosophy, and religion ?
You are right, science does not have to be the only field to give us answers. However, when was the last time philosophy or religion gave us a right answer about anything?
Japhia888 said:
speciation is NOT macro-evolution.
Yes it is. You are not allowed to change established scientific definitions simply because they do not suit your preconceived notion.
Japhia888 said:
Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.
According to your own definition, you agree with me. Have you ever heard of making an internally consistent argument? That definition means that speciation is an observation of macroevolution.
Furthermore, you claim that all the features we observe today are better explained with the book of Genesis. You have to be kidding. Therefore, the book of Genesis explains the fossil record, ERVs, and atavisms (just to name a few observations explained by modern evolutionary theory).
Please stop trolling and answer my very specific questions. What features of the natural world are better explained with Genesis? Furthermore, you ignored my other direct challenge; define evolution in a biological context. Please demonstrate that you know the first thing about the theory of evolution.
 
arg-fallbackName="lrkun"/>
Japhia888 said:
lrkun said:
Because only science gives results. Philosophy or religion offer nothing in comparison to science.

The following are some of the things which science has to offer, but not limited to these alone:

(1) Electricity;

(2) The computer that you are using; and

(3) Medicine.

What you need to find, is a solid world view, which is coherent and rational. If there only science and consequently materialism, of which it relies, shall be reliable, then it should be consisente in itself, and pass following test :

http://worldview3.50webs.com/

The Three Truth-Tests
Logical thinking allows us to list three distinctive qualities which test the truthfulness of any worldview:

FIRST, an adequate worldview must be consistent within itself, and non-contradictory. Any contradiction is a definite indication that the worldview contains at least some untruth; And if the contradiction involves an essential element of the worldview, then the worldview must be false, having failed the first truth-test.

SECOND, an adequate worldview must fit basically all the relevant facts and data of reality and human experience. The worldview which accounts for the greatest number of facts, with the fewest difficulties, has the highest probability of being a worldview which is true. A worldview which is inconsistent with human experience and with the empirical facts of history, nature and the universe, fails the second truth-test.

THIRD, an adequate worldview must be subjectively satisfactory and livable on an every-day basis. We must ask: When a man is done talking and "philosophizing" about the nature of his worldview, can he consistently live it out, and does he actually practice it in his daily life? ...If not, then the actions of his life reveal his true inner conviction of the untruth of his professed worldview ...that it is not livable, and therefore, by his actions he rejects his own worldview --so that it fails the third truth-test.

and materialism and naturalism fails this test.

The Worldview of Naturalism: Matter Only
(& Atheism)

Although many people are content with the worldview of Naturalism, many others have concluded that it is self-contradictory and inconsistent, it does not fit many facts of science and human experience, and it is not lived out by those who hold it. In several ways it fails the (Truth-Tests.) we've outlined.
The first proposition we've listed for naturalism states that "Matter/Energy is all there is for eternity,..." and if this is true, then the totality of man is only matter. If there is some degree of consciousness and thought in the brain of man, that thinking is still only a result of matter's properties. Why would these "thoughts" produced by matter (the chemical brain of man) correspond to the truth of reality? Matter has no known interest in truth. Why should chemicals be able to distinguish illusion from reality, since there is no rational and purposive cause for the existence of man or his mind,? ...Of course, naturalists may appeal to scientific inquiry and the laws of logical thought. But this begs the question, because it is the chemical brain which is "thinking" and using the scientific method and the laws of thought ...all of which might still be an illusion, and not reality. C.S.Lewis quotes Prof. Haldane as saying, "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms" ("Miracles", p.18). This may be like the motion of atoms to create "thoughts" in a computer ...what is to determine whether those computer "thoughts" are true or not? If naturalism is right, and matter is all there is, then even our "thoughts" about thinking and the brain and everything else may be nothing but illusion.

Epistemology is the study of the basis and validity of knowledge, ---and it is because of its inability to know anything for sure, that the worldview of naturalism is self-contradictory, and fails the first truth test. Naturalism logically creates an epistemological vacuum, in which man can never know anything for sure. Informed and consistent naturalism results in epistemological nihilism.

The philosophical naturalist (who is consistent) cannot know anything for sure, and yet the first proposition of naturalism makes statements as if they know that "matter is all there is" and that "no supernatural God exists". So, even though the philosophical naturalist does not know that his thinking bears any relationship to reality, still he often audaciously declares that he knows so much that he can categorically rule out the existence of something spiritual. The inconsistency and illogic in such assertions are obvious.

The second "Truth-Test" we've established for Worldviews, states that "an adequate worldview must fit virtually all the relevant facts and data of reality and human experience." In this regard, naturalism also has major problems. For example, there is excellent evidence for "intelligent design" in living things, which is skillfully brought out by Dr. Michael Behe of Lehigh University, in his book "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution." This evidence of intelligent design in nature, indicates beyond a reasonable doubt that there is some sort of super-human intelligence which has engineered at least some sophisticated molecular machines on the cellular level, such as cilia, flagella, DNA, many proteins, etc. The evidence shows that the material universe is actually not a "closed" system unto itself, but rather, it has been acted on from the outside. Naturalism has no good answer for these things, because Darwinist evolution has totally failed to explain how such molecular mechanisms could have developed gradually by any naturalistic evolutionary mechanisms. Even worse, is the naturalistic attempts to explain the origin of the first form of life, as Behe says, "a choking complexity strangles all such attempts" (p.177). In this regard, naturalism is a dismal failure.

In addition, naturalism has no adequate explanation for the fact of a large number of fulfilled prophetic predictions in the Bible, which clearly indicate the "knowledge" and "management" of the course of history by a super-intelligence. Also, there is the life of Jesus Christ, along with all the claims that he made, as well as the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which was seen by more than 500 people who lived to verify it for 40 years, and it was reported in writing by more than six individuals who recorded the history independently of each other.

With regard to the third "Truth-Test" concerning the "livability" of a worldview, if the universe is a "closed" system, being only governed from within, then every event and everything else is caused as a necessary result and effect of what came before. Though we may be incapable of predicting what will happen in the future, the future is absolutely certain, and totally determined by the present state of matter in the universe. Man may "think" he is an agent of free choice, but any notion of free agency is actually a self-deception. There cannot actually be any meaningful sort of "free will" in the worldview of naturalism. As a result, there is no logic to thinking that man could possibly be responisble for his actions. Man is basically a highly evolved "bacteria," in essence, and it is nonsense to say that a bacteria "ought" to do one thing as opposed to something else. But people don't live their lives this way, since everyone, including naturalists, has expectations of how people ought to live and treat one another. In addition, man in naturalism also could not do or be anything which is significant, valuable or meaningful. What is there to convey that significance or value? If no spiritual part of man survives his physical body, he will not care or be aware of anything done in life, whether "good" or "bad", which are meaningless terms in the naturalist worldview. But this is not how people, including naturalists, live their lives. They reveal that naturalism fails the third "Truth-Test".

What is the final outcome then? If a person is consistently a naturalist, he proceeds into nihilism. Nihilism says that no one can know anything for sure, so no statement can be valid ...and nothing has any value, meaning or significance, good or bad. Regarding this, Dr. James W. Sire writes, "One of the awfulest consequences of taking epistemological nihilism seriously is that it has led some to question the very facticity of the universe. To some, nothing is real, not even themselves. When a person reaches this state, he is in deep trouble, for he can no longer function as a human being. Or, as we often say, he can't cope. ---We usually do not recognize this situation as metaphysical or epistemological nihilism. Rather, we call it schizophrenia, hallucination, fantasizing, daydreaming or living in a dream world. And we "treat" the person as a "case," the problem as a "disease." (Ref. "The Universe Next Door", J. Sire, Inter-Varsity, Downers Grove, p.87). So, some people who take their naturalism absolutely seriously and to its logical conclusion, have proceeded into mental and emotional breakdown.

Although most people with the worldview of naturalism do not take it to its logical end, obviously, they still prefer to remain in that failed philosophical system because they are uncomfortable with another alternative ...especially the option of considering God. However, it is the hope of this web page to challenge people to reconsider.

Science consistently provided me with the results that I require. From basic necessities to wants. Why do I need to add another factor which, to this day, played no part in my way of life?

1+1=2 (better) Science
1+1+1-1=2 (roundabout) God

;)
 
arg-fallbackName="nemesiss"/>
Japhia888 said:
nemesiss said:
god CANNOT EXIST without time.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/dimensions.html

The State of God

To exist outside of time has another implication. If you existed outside of time, it would mean that there are no 'frames' of you that change snapshot-by-snapshot. If you are not part of time, and changing, viewing it from within, then you are outside of time viewing everything from the outside.

"I the LORD do not change."
Malachi 3:6

Without change-over-time, any eternal being is immutable. There are no frames, no changes over time. In other words: No progress, no retreat, no changes of mind, no learning, no psychology, no changing of emotions and no active thought. A being outside of time exists as one instant, one snapshot only (like our 2D painting in a 3D world; constant). Emotions, thought, planning, progress and all those other things require change over time. Knowledge, also, would be absolute.

Nothing new could be learned because everything that is real and true exists in the 4D object that the being outside-of-time sees all at once. A creator-god who created the universe would exist in a very strange state. This being would exist, forever, viewing the universe that it created as a single 4D object that itself doesn't change over time. All of reality, everything, is 'there', not 'happening' now, but merely existing in reality. Nothing in the world could ever surprise an eternal creator, just like the stickman will never do anything that the child hasn't already seen.

This explanation, going through all the dimensions, truly gives an idea of how a being could indeed be all-knowing about everything that goes on in the universe, but such a being lives in a sad state of eternal immutability. This ties in with one other commonly-cited feature of God: its perfection. If a being is perfect, it cannot change. God's all-knowing nature, the eternality of its existence outside of time, its status as an outside creator of the universe and finally its status as a perfect being, each predict that God is unchanging. William James calls this the lack of 'potential' for God:

"This absence of all potentiality in God obliges Him to be immutable. [...] Were there anything potential about Him, He would either lose or gain by its actualization, and either loss or gain would contradict his perfection. He cannot, therefore, change."

so if your god lacks the ability to be part of time, therefor she cannot interact with... so for argument say, some guy in the desert and give him 2 stone tablets with 10 guidelines on them.

as for the argument of there are no 2dimensional objects in our universe is "coockoo for cocao-puffs".
granted, almost any object in our world is 3 dimensional, but that isn't always relevant.
you'd probably have a piece of paper near by, you can write on the front and the back... but are you also writing on the sides?

and if you'd like a more practicle example: TETRIS !

if a +4 dimensional character would exist, the we would be able to observe atleast 3 dimensions of that object.
so far your 4 dimensional god hasn't been located. if you know where he can be found, it would give a bit more credit for your argument.

Japhia888 said:
Chance was and still is NEVER an element in the equation of life.

what else do you suggest therefore ?

random mutation and enviromental pressure


Japhia888 said:
well, the thoughts in your brain is also information.
unfortunately, we can't copy the exact context from a brain.

if you express them with words, they can be copied.

that would be considered a representation of the information stored in your brain, not a copy.
same goes for copying a cd, your not making a copy of the cd,
your making a duplicate of the representation of the information, which is translated into music.

Japhia888 said:
as for the interpertation of patterns, ever heard of braille?
to many it many be just a bunch of dot's, but for blind people it's means access to the world.

braille is a language. Is information upon common agreement. Its not just a pattern.
thats my point, we know it as language.
but for someone who doesn't know it, its just weird dots.

im gonna give you a random pattern, could you do something with it?

. ...- --- .-.. ..- - .. --- -.

Japhia888 said:
Similar to humans, we can trace the course of language of humans through history.
our main source books, cloths, pots clay tablets, etc... anything that was used to write on.

the oldest languages known to us are even more complex than modern ones. Your argument fails to adress, how language could be result of evolution.

could you tell us with language that might be and why its more complex that modern ones?
as for how it could be the result of evolution...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language#Scenarios_for_language_evolution
 
arg-fallbackName="TheFlyingBastard"/>
Japhia888 said:
TheFlyingBastard said:
The law of thermodynamics is irrelevant because the universe has not always been in this state.
So in what state was it ?
A different one than that it is now. One without the forces we have now. Why do you think we can't retrace the universe before Planck? There's a huge gaping void of knowledge before Planck because the universe operated under different rules.
Japhia888 said:
http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/philosophy-and-god-f14/philosophy-of-time-t178.htm

Why can't the past be infinite? The answer is that it is impossible to complete an infinite series by addition. The series of past events is complete. Think of this mathematical fact. Why is it impossible to count to infinity? It is impossible because, no matter how long you count, you will always be at a finite number. It is impossible to complete an actual infinite by successive addition.

Oh no, not this shit again. "You can't get to here if time goes back infinitely."
This isn't about completion or about travel. It's irrelvant. You don't start counting somewhere as infinity is a concept, not a number.
∞ <--- now.
The graph will not change, no matter where you are.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't copypaste Greg Ganssle and would argue using your own brains.
Japhia888 said:
See page 1 and 2 of this thread. There's your answer for better explanations than God Did It.
i have not aknowledged any.
No, that would be most inconvenient for you.
Japhia888 said:
speciation is NOT macro-evolution.
Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species.
This one should go in the quote thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top