Why I am an "Evolutionist"

It might have. This is Stephen Hawking:

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.​
– A Brief History of Time​

A zero energy universe needs zero energy input to get started.
Yes, I'm familiar with Hawking's work. I know that two waves undergoing destructive interference cancel each other out into what is essentially no wave at all. So if two waves can be no waves, then can no waves be two waves? I don't see why not. So yes in a sense something can come from nothing. I think most people reject this idea because it seems counterintuitive. But of course, reality doesn't always make sense.
 
The God who said "Let the earth bring forth..." That was a time when the earth was not alive, just chemicals. So, He was saying "Let the non-living chemicals bring forth..." Similarly for water, which was non-living chemicals before it brought forth living organisms at God's command.

The God of the Bible does not create living organisms directly; He creates then indirectly by using non-living chemicals as an intermediate step. Abiogenesis looks at the second part of that process, where the chemicals bring forth life.
True....as Adam was made from the dust. The Lord said...“Let the earth bring forth vegetation"....On day 5 the Lord said..." “Let the waters teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth". On day six the lord said... “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds:"......
I wasn't there and neither were you...so you might be somewhat accurate when you said..."let the non-living chemicals bring forth"
Somehow God did it....and we know God didn't use evolutionism.
One example would be when Eve was created....from Adams rib...that is a reproducing humans were created without evolutionism.

The Bible doesn't speak of evo-ism...it never has and never will. Each original animal was created separately as God didn't say from the animals I created the animal kinds.
 
If you interpret the Bible literally, then no, the God I mention is not "the God of the Bible." It seems reasonable to me that the existence we experience has a basis, and I call that basis "God." Since the universe exists, then its basis for existence is God. I am borrowing the "creation ex nihilo" doctrine from Christian theology and positing that God created the universe from nothing.
I agree...and I add, if there is anything there is the need for a creator that is self existent....as the stuff of the universe could not have self created from nothing.
I should point out that if I'm wrong about God, then the universe must have created itself from nothing.
the Bible isn't wrong.
 
It might have. This is Stephen Hawking:

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.​
– A Brief History of Time​

A zero energy universe needs zero energy input to get started.
Each of those two components speak of something existing...though as you say they might equal zero.

As an example you might have to 9 volt batteries. when connected + -....+ - you get 18 volts. Your example would have then connected + -... - + where through a load there would be zero current flow.....The zero current flow would be the zero energy you mentioned YET there is a potential of 9 volts + and 9 volts - present. Though there is no current flow like the energy and gravity they are present...in existence with no explanation of their existence.....which is your problem. With God, the truth, there is no problem.
 
Yes, I'm familiar with Hawking's work. I know that two waves undergoing destructive interference cancel each other out into what is essentially no wave at all. So if two waves can be no waves, then can no waves be two waves? I don't see why not. So yes in a sense something can come from nothing. I think most people reject this idea because it seems counterintuitive. But of course, reality doesn't always make sense.
Problem is, when you step back and take a look....there is what ever generated the wave. There is an input. I can see the waves on an oscilloscope and adjust the waves to be the same frequency and amplitude....and when the two waves are 180 degrees out of phase the total will be zero despite the potential being present. But, a flat line, a zero line, on an oscilloscope with no potential will never produce a wave let alone two waves.
 
You claimed Unknown Soldier's belief of a universe not existing but that existing is a contradiction because it is doing both at "the same time". Have you now abandoned that claim?
In order to self create yourself from nothing you have to be...when you are not being. I have not abandoned that claim and have no reason to abandon that claim.
 
I agree...and I add, if there is anything there is the need for a creator that is self existent....as the stuff of the universe could not have self created from nothing.
I think the belief that self-creation from nothing is impossible arose from our everyday experiences in which things are apparently always created from something else. It's just counter-intuitive to conclude that self-creation happens. But the universe doesn't care what we think is reasonable. That's why your "armchair reasoning" so often fails. If my intuition runs counter to yours, then how do we decide who is right? And if we conclude that what doesn't happen cannot happen, then the miracles described in the Bible cannot happen.
the Bible isn't wrong.
But you might be wrong.
 
Problem is, when you step back and take a look....there is what ever generated the wave. There is an input. I can see the waves on an oscilloscope and adjust the waves to be the same frequency and amplitude....and when the two waves are 180 degrees out of phase the total will be zero despite the potential being present. But, a flat line, a zero line, on an oscilloscope with no potential will never produce a wave let alone two waves.
But how can the energy that was put into the two waves that cancel each other out have been reduced to "nothing"? The answer is that the sum of the energy in the universe is zero. The energy we experience is either positive or negative energy that has not yet been canceled out. Some day all that positive and negative energy will cancel out to zero energy with the heat death of the cosmos. "From zero you came and to zero you will return."
 
I think the belief that self-creation from nothing is impossible arose from our everyday experiences in which things are apparently always created from something else. It's just counter-intuitive to conclude that self-creation happens. But the universe doesn't care what we think is reasonable. That's why your "armchair reasoning" so often fails. If my intuition runs counter to yours, then how do we decide who is right? And if we conclude that what doesn't happen cannot happen, then the miracles described in the Bible cannot happen.
Miracle are supernatural...They do happen.
But you might be wrong.
I'm not wrong.
 
But how can the energy that was put into the two waves that cancel each other out have been reduced to "nothing"? The answer is that the sum of the energy in the universe is zero. The energy we experience is either positive or negative energy that has not yet been canceled out. Some day all that positive and negative energy will cancel out to zero energy with the heat death of the cosmos. "From zero you came and to zero you will return."
That's a hopeless "reality".

I'll stick with the God of the truth. You, on the other hand can continue pretending. That's your right.
 
What would the fossil record have to look like if there were large changes happening over long periods of time, such that we don't actually see anything like that?
From the information that I have received, there would not be billions of missing links and there would be evidence of fossil species transitioning into others. There would be no transitional fossils dropping out of nowhere with whole new traits and without evidence of precursor ancestors. There would not exist a Cambrian explosion where practically all animal phyla had a beginning in a biological big bang. And there would exist more of a continual flow in the fossil record between species. This was what Darwin predicted would happen as more fossils were discovered but instead the opposite has been the case with no missing links and no evidence of transitions between species and it just continues to get worse with further excavation.
 
Last edited:
In order to self create yourself from nothing you have to be...when you are not being. I have not abandoned that claim and have no reason to abandon that claim.
Ah, I see you are using the word "create" to frame the discussion in a way that makes it look like you are right.

But we could frame it this way: the universe just happened spontaneous, uncaused. Now there is no need for the universe to exist prior to its existence to create itself, and there is no logical contradiction.
 
On day 5 the Lord said..." “Let the waters teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth".
Which is incorrect. There are no fossil birds before the first fossil land animals (day 6). This is one of the indicators that the writers of Genesis did not get everything correct. Birds came well after the first land animals, not before them.

.and we know God didn't use evolutionism.
Irrelevant. The origin of life is abiogenesis, not evolution. Abiogenesis is the process of life arising from non-living chemicals. Evolution is the process of new species arising from earlier species. They are very different processes, with different properties. It is an error to confuse them.
 
From the information that I have received, there would not be billions of missing links and there would be evidence of fossil species transitioning into others. There would be no transitional fossils dropping out of nowhere with whole new traits and without evidence of precursor ancestors. There would not exist a Cambrian explosion where practically all animal phyla had a beginning in a biological big bang. And there would exist more of a continual flow in the fossil record between species. This was what Darwin predicted would happen as more fossils were discovered but instead the opposite has been the case with no missing links and no evidence of transitions between species and it just continues to get worse with further excavation.
The evo's swung and missed on this transitional issue. As you mentioned the cambrian fossils have appeared suddenly, fully formed and without a series of transitional fossils showing their so-called path of evo-ism.

Archaeopteryx...should not be a stand alone animal.....there should be a pathway of fossils leading from the dinosaur then through archaeopteryx and then leading to modern birds......but there isn't.
 
Which is incorrect. There are no fossil birds before the first fossil land animals (day 6). This is one of the indicators that the writers of Genesis did not get everything correct. Birds came well after the first land animals, not before them.
Ahhhh, errrr, clears throat....you do knowwwww that the flood waters of Noahs flood didn't deposit and bury the animals in the order they were created????? Right??? You do know that???
Irrelevant. The origin of life is abiogenesis, not evolution. Abiogenesis is the process of life arising from non-living chemicals. Evolution is the process of new species arising from earlier species. They are very different processes, with different properties. It is an error to confuse them.
When the abiogenesis occurred...God formed life directly from the dust. The bible speaks of man as an example.

You seem to wanna be nit-picky...but that's ok, we'll settle it out.
 
Yes, I personally don't have that evidence. However, I see no reason why organisms with fins cannot evolve into organisms with legs. In fact, some fish alive today like the mudskipper can walk. We also have tadpoles that swim like fish when young and walk on land as mature frogs.
I meant to reply to this yesterday....because the mudskipper is alive today....like the coelacanth is....it doesn't mean it evolved but rather a similiar creature existed in the past.

The amazing thing about the tadpole...as well as other metamorphic creatures....is the ability to have the genetic DNA code program for such a change.....How does that happen via a process of random mutations and chance?
 
From the information that I have received, there would not be billions of missing links
Why not? Why would one expect to find a fossil for every species?

and there would be evidence of fossil species transitioning into others.
What would a group of fossils have to look like (or where would they have to be found, etc.) such that you'd then say, "this fossils is transitional to this one?"

There would be no transitional fossils dropping out of nowhere with whole new traits and without evidence of precursor ancestors.
Why not? Why would you expect to have the fossils that would fill in that gap?

There would not exist a Cambrian explosion where practically all animal phyla had a beginning in a biological big bang.
Why not?

And there would exist more of a continual flow in the fossil record between species.
See above.

This was what Darwin predicted would happen as more fossils were discovered but instead the opposite has been the case with no missing links and no evidence of transitions between species and it just continues to get worse with further excavation.
 
The evo's swung and missed on this transitional issue. As you mentioned the cambrian fossils have appeared suddenly, fully formed and without a series of transitional fossils showing their so-called path of evo-ism.

Archaeopteryx...should not be a stand alone animal.....there should be a pathway of fossils leading from the dinosaur then through archaeopteryx and then leading to modern birds......but there isn't.
What nonsense. Can you tell us what a fossil of an animal that is not fully formed would look like? What does your version of a series of transitional fossils need to consist of to be accepted by you?

The Cambrian fossils may have appeared "suddenly", but that doesn't mean that the animals that formed them did so. The so-called Cambrian explosion is a product of two things. Firstly, the development of hard body parts which fossilise much more readily than the soft bodies of precursors, and secondly an exceptional area of deposition in the Burgess Shales, giving superb fossils in great numbers.

What do you mean by a "stand alone animal"? Every organism, including yourself, is a stand alone individual, showing elements of similarity with both its ancestors and its descendents. Archaeopteryx is not claimed to be the ancestor of all birds. It may have no extant descendants at all. What it shows, in conjunction with other fossils, is that animals with the characteristics of both dinosaurs and modern birds existed. There's a clear link in the fossil record and in anatomical comparisons between dinosaurs and birds. There's no doubt whatsoever that birds are
descendents of dinosaurs, and can be legitimately described as surviving dinosaurs.
 
Back
Top