Mageth

First cause again?

First, if our universe is growing, it must have a beginning and an end.

Why does it follow from "the universe is (apparently) expanding" ("growing" is not the right term) that it must have a beginning and an end? Perhaps it always existed, and just changes form?

I think that if the universe can change, it cannot have always been. Because something that has always existed would not change.

How did you reach the conclusion that something that has always existed would not change? To our current understanding, matter/energy "can neither be created or destroyed." Yet it changes form all the time.

If you agree with me on that, then the universe had to come from a timeless, unchanging source. If the universe has a beginning, it cannot have created itself, am I right?

I don't think it's proven that the universe had a "beginning." And how could a "tiimeless, unchanging source" create a "timeful" universe with a beginning and an end without itself "changing?"

Therefore, if you still agree with me up to here, regardless of whether evolution is the process which was used, at some point, the universe ahd to be created.

Evolution does not attempt to explain the "creation" of anything, other than diversity.

As far as we know, time is a property of the universe. The most I will say is the Universe is. If time is a property of the universe, talking about "before" the universe (necessary to posit a creative act - a beginning) is meaningless.

Grumpy

Perhaps logical, but not helpful. The "Creationism" which is opposed to "Evolution" addresses biological phenomena. Were species created all at once, or did they develop based on historical contingencies? Underlying this question is the more personal, psychological dilemma: Are human beings special creations, or accidental side-effects?

Whether or not there was a supernatural "First Cause" for the universe is irrelevant to the question of biological origins.

Also, the quaint syllogism "Everything requires a creator, therefore the cosmos was created" does not qualify as scientific evidence. As such, religious or secular models can fit equally well. This thread asks whether the religious (especially Biblical) model fits the facts better.

Tricia

Hey Gar!

Just a little question: don't you think this is a bad place if you want a creationist's view? On the secular web?

~Tricia

hezekiah jones

You're a "creationist." Out with the evidence.

Jerry Smith

Gar & Tricia -

The debate is raging on the <a href="http://www.christianforums.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=70" target="_blank">Christian Forums</a>.

If the secular web isn't a good place to pick up a creationist viewpoint, then the <a href="http://www.christianforums.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=70" target="_blank">Christian Forums</a> should be a great place to post your query.


edited to fix links...
[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: Jerry Smith ]

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: Jerry Smith ]</p>

Tricia

I think not. I am not ready to do that, and you can't force me to. Right now I'm just here to learn.

~Tricia

Quetzal

HJ: Tricia does have something of a point - although her solution is probably just as bad. By definition, II is going to have mostly godless "evilutionists", so the answers might be a bit, hmmm, slanted toward science.

OTOH, I don't agree that wandering over to one of the hallelujah boards is going to accomplish much either, at least for someone who simply wants to hear both sides clearly - and primarily for the same reasons.

However, there are alternatives on the web. One in particular that I frequent - although the site design makes my head hurt - is <a href="http://207.36.64.70/cgi-bin/Ultimate.cgi" target="_blank">evcforum.net</a>. The board is owned by a theistic evolutionist, and has a very light moderation policy. It is dedicated solely to E/C. The level of discussion is pretty high overall, and very civil. There are a number of intelligent evilutionist regulars and several quasi-rational fundies, with a large occasional number of both hardcore (some of our old friends like John Paul, karl crawford - well, not anymore, he attempted to take down the board with a hacker trick and has the distinction of being the only poster ever permanently banned - Fred Williams, WS Anderson, etc), and a largish number of ignorant and/or curious fundies, running the gamut from IDists to True YECs (TM).

Sorry about the digression, I'm not trying to drum up business. My point is there ARE alternatives to a fully one-sided argument. Since there's one site like evcforum, my guess is there are probably others if anyone feels like looking for them.

DrLao

Even assuming this is true, you have demonstrated creation, not creationism. Even if the universe was created that is not evidence for the separate creation of every "kind" of living organism 6,000 years ago.

Hastur

Situational bias aside, I think this is an excellent thread to keep around. Even if it's only for the comedic value of referring cretinist trolls to it.

Don't try to tell us that evolution has holes and therefore creationism is better...show us that creationism is better, period.

C'mon, I double-dog dare ya.

[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: He Who Must Not Be Named ]</p>

Gar

I see your point. I originally thought that the creationists that bother tp post on this board would be prepared with an argument, but apparently not. I am now looking into other forums.

However, if there is anyone here who can answer me, out with it.