Kosh

Check it out. Got into a litle evo/creationism
discussion with my neighbor last night (had
left an "origin of life" documentary on TV when
they showed up). He suffers fromt the typical
YEC mis-understandings that we've seen here over
and over. He doesn't really understand the
mechanics of evolutions, and so finds them hard
to accept and then jumps to creationism. Typical
arguments about the eye, moths evolving into
elephants, confusing abiogeneis with evo, and my favorite, the "tornado in a
junkyard making a 747" fallacy.

Anyway.... as for the six day story, he pops up
with this bit that due to time dialation and
general relativity, because the earth is moving
(and I presume it includes the expansion of the
universe at what, 1 billion miles per hour) and
God is "stationary" (he must be sitting at a
specific place in the "firmament") that 6 days
to him was like 4 billion years on earth...


Of course, even if this were the case, they've
got it backwards as to the effects on time
observation, but it was all I could do keep
the beer in my mouth at the time....
<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Infinity Lover

Nothing lacks everything; it's nothing.

How's everything going to come out of nothing?

There can't be a singular entity spawning a limited existence. These particular parts of our infinite existence are capable of spawning a peculiar existence spawning entity though.

What would be beyond that limit anyway? Nothing? Limited something on the inside, boundless nothingness on the outside? Try putting a wrapper around that candy! Nothing can't contain something. It's silly to try and figure out how it could. NOthing's nothing. There's always something.

GunnerJ

Amos, move over! Marcel has taken your crown!

copernicus

Then how do you explain that I got nothing out of your post, Marcel? Thanks for nothing!!!

Heleilu

Who is this friend of yours? That sounds a lot like the argument my best friend is making, and I thought he'd come up with it independently (he's an OEC and loves astrophysics).

Theophage

Originally posted by Marcel Rombouts:
Nothing lacks everything; it's nothing.

Mostly correct, though I would amend that to read "'Nothing'lacks anything; it's nothing." The reason being that I also lack "everything" but I am hardly "nothing".

How's everything going to come out of nothing?

I don't think it did, I personally am a supporter of the notion of an atheistic First Cause, but that's just me.

I also think you hit the nail right on the head when you wrote this:

NOthing's nothing. There's always something.

I find this to be very true. "Nothing" cannot exist by defintion, thus there must always be "something". The tricky concept here is that when I say "always", I don't necessarily mean "for an infinite amount of time", only that there is no point in time when the universe (the something) did not exist. I'm fairly convinced it is still of finite age, though...

(I hope my post made more sense than Marcel's did :^)

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

Kosh

He definitely got it from some Xian apologist...

Kosh

Nothing from nothing leaves nothing (little riff)
you gotta have something ('nother riff)
if you wanna be with me!
- the great prophet Stevie Wonder