Evolution vs. Creation

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
"According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know. "
Footnotes:
Steven W. Hawking, George F.R. Ellis, "The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe," Astrophysical Journal, 152,(1968) pp. 25-36.
Steven W. Hawking, Roger Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970) pp. 529-548.
Mark Eastman, Chuck Missler, The Creator: Beyond Time and Space,(1996) p. 11.
W. Wayt Gibbs, "Profile: George F. R. Ellis," Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55.
See http://www.halos.com/reports/ext-2003-022.pdf
See http://www.halos.com/reports/arxiv-1998-roset... and http://www.halos.com/reports/ext-2003-021.pdf ; see also http://www.halos.com/reports/arxiv-1998-redsh... and http://www.halos.com/reports/arxiv-1998-affir...

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
In case you didn't know, quantum mechanics is not a causal theory. It is also one of the most successful theories in all of science.

Kong_ wrote:

<quoted text>
Clarify, please.
Are you saying the Earth is at the center of the Universe?

lightbeamrider wrote:

<quoted text> Quantum Mechanics does not alter cause and effect at macro levels. You seem to be printing quantum mechanics had something to do with the Big Bang. The big bang effected everything. I think you guys get away with these things because nobody really understands what you are talking about. Operate in a fog. Like i say. It is a matter of trust and folks like you have not earned it. There is no reason to trust anything non theists have to say when it comes to origins. Quantum Mechanics not a causal theory. If these things happen in space/time then that is quite hard to accept.

Judged:

1

1

1

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

<quoted text>
"Quantum Mechanics does not alter cause and effect at macro levels."
Rather than get our jollies watching you duck and dodge the problem of proving a negative claim I will simply point to the fact that transistor and diode function is governed by quantum level events.
If Brownian motion is a stochastic process, and I think it is, and sperm is influenced by Brownian motion, and I think it is, then you are a non-causal event and so am I.

lightbeamrider wrote:

<quoted text> Negatives are proven all the time in courts of law by testimony. If you want to believe you are an effect absent a cause then be my guest. You already believe your rights come from men with no souls.

Elohim wrote:

http://datingjesus.files.wordp ress.com/2012/07/165865_484407 848253499_2072817052_n.jpg

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

<quoted text>
That's great. I'll try to remember that.
Fun fact: George the Third ordered that lightning rods be pointed on top because lightning rods in the rebellious colonies were rounded.
Did you know those glass bulbs on lightning rods were intended to explode if the rod was struck so the Bible Belt farmer would know to check the integrity of his system?

Knightmare wrote:

Is it possible that there are other lifeforms in the universe?

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes.
Why do you ask?

Knightmare wrote:

<quoted text>
But why would that be possible and not God?

Elohim wrote:

<quoted text>And why not unicorns,ogres, fire breathing dragons, Atlas, Ra, Zeus, Mars or Professor Snape?

Knightmare wrote:

But why would that be possible and not God?

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
That depends on whether or not the definition of "god" were self-contradictory. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that it is not.
So it is *possible* that a god exists. But without evidence to support a claim that a god *actually* exists, why believe that one *does*?

Knightmare wrote:

What KIND of evidence?

Drew Smith wrote:

So it is *possible* that a god exists. But without evidence to support a claim that a god *actually* exists, why believe that one *does*?
<quoted text>
For a rational claim of something's existence? Objective, unambiguous evidence.

Knightmare wrote:

Okay, those are nice words but if we're trying to find evidence of God we'd have to come up with what His traits are. I mean: inhabits eternity, infinite, omnipresent, omniscient, creator.

Knightmare wrote:

Lets take the first one, this would objectively mean God would have to live in different dimension or encompass more dimensions than time.

Knightmare wrote:

<quoted text>
Okay, those are nice words but if we're trying to find evidence of God we'd have to come up with what His traits are. I mean: inhabits eternity, infinite, omnipresent, omniscient, creator. Lets take the first one, this would objectively mean God would have to live in different dimension or encompass more dimensions than time.