This continues the debate over Creation/Evolution.

We have no clue how matter would have come about IF it had not been created.
If we conclude that we don't KNOW. That explains nothing. And we have no business build anything onto NOTHING. Evolution is built on a "chance" that it may be right....right about what....not having a CLUE?

A CREATOR is the only logical answer possible, as a CREATOR could MAKE things from nothing. Of course then you try to check mate me in return with, "Then where did the Creator come from?" The Bible says He has always existed. Ok, that's some really heavy stuff to chew, but spit it all out and you are right back to...NOTHING.

If the Creator could have always existed, then why couldn't all of creation have always existed?

If I understand Chico correctly, a more reasonable explanation is derived from natural law and chance. And, natural law is mostly unfathomable to our little brains.

I'm wondering where we get our understanding of many natural laws?

Do accepted scientific facts ever change?
Do mathmatical equations ever get replaced?

Not continuously, but occasionally. Over time don't the cleverest humans find, or create, (I have no idea which) an equation that works. Then other clever humans try it many times and if it continues to work successfully it is supported and stated as true. That is until another equation is discovered that proves it wrong and replaces it.

If you base all your conclusions on chance and natural laws based on scientific truths, is it not based on a never ending series of current guesses?

Another question is; are the sciences actually like religion? Human made concepts and formula's created by humans to help us understand life. Which are known to change when another human come's up with a more 'reasonable' concept and gather around other humans that agree for a period of time......?? We label things, and categorise them so they fit into a framework we can process. But is a tree still a tree if we don't label it as such.

Are they similar? Or am I missing something?

Yes, natural laws don't 'have' to be created........but they 'could' have been created. Do you think it's possible to prove it either way?
Lee

From repetitive observation and testing, combined with mental analysis. So understanding is dependent on our senses and the tools we use to enhance our senses, as well as our brain power.


Yes. Explanations change when understanding changes.


When explanations change, yes. Mathematics is just a mechanical way to describe explanations.


Yes, but guesses in not the correct word. You are basing your conclusions on your current understanding of natural laws, probability (chance), and whatever other knowledge you have available, which ideally is always increasing.


In some ways, yes, but with a critical difference. Science is less static and dogmatic than religion. Science is designed to incrementally, or even drastically, improve itself when necessary. Religion is designed to maintain the status quo.


No, I don't think that's possible.

Good question Chico. I suppose because of the law of thermodynamics, as nothing we know of gains in "lifespan".
It seems anything with a molecular structure is prone to that LAW, and it seems the exception is the Elohim.

But this raises a good question as well. How is it possible to exist without a a lifespan? I am not talking some mumbo jumbo about energy moving on and all that jive. I am talking about ME here. My body...my mind...my soul...in tack...continuing on beyond the existence of the earth itself. If that were possible...I am all for it. To hell with being snuffed out like a candle flame and everything I labored over is gone as quick. All the truths we found will be snuffed as well. ALL that humanity has "gained"...snuffed out. I suppose that is why reincarnation is so popular...another "chance"...a "reset button". Reset to what? How do you "evolve from mortality to immortality? And THAT is what "religions" hope in. It's all senseless CRAP.

How can they not be? Both are given limited info to base anything upon. Even with adequate info, few ever can handle it. How many Einteins does the scientific world have? How many Zacharias does the religious world have today?


It better be possible or no one is to say that a mouse in a cookie jar is not a cookie.

What the heck are you talking about?! Here are the laws of thermodynamics. Explain to me what they have to do with my question. Thermodynamics concerns itself with energy and temperature, not "lifespan". And if you want to apply the laws of thermodynamics to all of creation, then you better apply them to any posited creator as well.


I'm more inclined to agree with this argument.

Sorry about my oversight. It seem sickness makes for that. I forgot to include that I am referring to the Second Law of Thermodynamics - Increased Entropy
"The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy.

"Entropy" is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, "entropy" increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase."

Yes, anyone who claims to be "eternal" better not have to "bow" to this law. Apparently the Elohim don't bow to anything, and it seems "reasonable", if they indeed CREATED everything and gave creation "laws" to operate by.

It is a sad thing indeed that there is such a thing as a "debate" about 'creation v. evolution'. There is no debate, any more than there is a 'debate' on whether the planet is a cube or a plate or a ball. *sigh*

Well Temy, how do we know that the earth is actually a ball that is not debateable? It took a lot of "effort" to figure that out, and so it is with Creation versus Evolution. Only one can be true, and based on which one, determines if we are but dust blowing in the wind or if we are eternal beings with eternal destinies of sorts. is that not something worth determining?