Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pezz who wrote (57979)	8/3/1999 9:59:00 AM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Let me summarize the debate: Evolutionist: Jumping genes + natural selection + 4 billion years explains all the diversity of live on earth. Skeptic: What empirical evidence can you give me that one species has ever evolved into a separate distinct species? Evolutionist: I only have circumstantial evidence. Skeptic: Which is? Evolutionist: The evidence is that there is no other explanation. Skeptic: How about God created the heavens and the earth. Evolutionist: Religious fanatic!! Skeptic: Atheist nihilist!! Third Party: SOMEONE CALL 911!

To: pezz who wrote (57979)	8/3/1999 10:03:00 AM
From: gao seng	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

-> <<Any supreme being implies supremely above the laws of the supreme being's creation.>> The traditional view of supreme being would of course meet your criteria. But since this is a debate I am not constrained by any such view. Suffice to say I can see the possibility of a motive.... if you will ....for creation that may well be satisfied with the simple creation of the laws of physics ....add in unlimited time, matter, and energy ...and voila'!.......the desired effect is produced.....Whatever that may be...Eveloution and natural selection simply are an inevitable result of these laws . In effect...and/or simply put.....God wants life..creates physics waits a few billion [give or take ] years and...Presto.... life.... intelligent if so desired ...is created. ....End of task.-< But you constrained by the rules of debate, (unless you are debating yourself) and you just can't ignore the experts on the topic such as Plato's movus non movus without pointing out the weaknesses of their logic.

To: pezz who wrote (57979)	8/3/1999 12:32:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<In effect...and/or simply put.....God wants life..creates physics waits a few billion [give or take ] years and...Presto.... life.... intelligent if so desired ...is created. ....End of task.>> Very simple and straight forward idea. If it were the only plausible explanation, it would be a good starting point. And if the universe were simply a physical place and not a moral place that would be enough. For example, I believe Eden is a real place but not of this Earth. So, I can also imagine that humans existed in Eden in a different form and when Adam and Eve were transported to Earth they were given…."Possession of the bodies of creatures that had previously been beastial." Lets say this occurred at the proper mark of your 4 billions Earth history time line. Note: I don't believe this but give it minor credence for the sake of continuing this discussion. This really is not a point of contention for me. I do believe that the human seed started with Adam and Eve. The rest of it is of no consequence. Let's look at my "Supreme Being" for a sec. My Supreme Being is outside the limits of the Temporal Universe. Time and Space are temporal creations that make the manifestation of the physical universe practical. My Supreme Being can know the billions you speak of as a single moment, as well as, in the richness of time. Scriptures tell me that life as I know it on earth will be as a twinkle in my eye in the scope of eternity as I view it in an after life. Some scientist studying the physical universe have determined that the existence of time, space, and mass is ultimately illusory. These scientist have concluded that "laws of physics" are useful in the practical sense but that pure energy is all that is left when you follow the "logical sequence" of study. Scriptures tell us that when the Universe passes away all that is left is the Alpha and Omega, Supreme Being. This supports the existence of a physical temp universe and if you add moral purpose, the existence of a Supreme being who over rides it. <<It just seems to me that this is the truth based on observable phenomena......until convinced otherwise. Does the Quran have hard evidence of creation as explanation for human life? If so I as well as the scientific community am all ears.>> The Quran explains the Creation and generations of life. The observation of the validity of what it reports is so perfect that it is above reproach. In addition it provides evidence for the validity of the moral universe and challenges us to study and confirm this for our selves. Go to all the records of all the generations and you will find supporting evidence for what it tells you. For example, it tells you what will be the "natural" rewards for those who either follow the moral guidelines or chose to ignore them. You are at least as old as I am so I am sure you don't have to go far to find confirmation. In fact, the foot steps leading to the chair your occupying should give you plenty. Everything in the Quran is confirmable by observation and self evident knowledge of morality. More evidence: We have authenticated messengers. Although, I consider Pat Robertson and the like to be scholars of their religion, I don't consider them to be messengers. The messengers have conveyed the truth about our existence and time has proven them to be 100%. I would say that is hard evidence.

To: pezz who wrote (57979)	8/3/1999 1:01:00 PM
From: gao seng	Respond to of 67261

pezz, I am not saying that you are not entitled to your own view of a supreme being. Indeed, no 2 people share the exact same view of what a supreme being is. Alas, many poeple to do not believe in a supreme being, either. This, of course, is their right also. What I am saying, in regards to: "<<Any supreme being implies supremely above the laws of the supreme being's creation.>> The traditional view of supreme being would of course meet your criteria. But since this is a debate I am not constrained by any such view. " is that the acceptance of a supreme being implies an acceptance of supremacy over the acceptor. This is not-debatable, it is inherent in the act of acceptance. Perhaps you are distracted by the word creation, and you do believe in supreme being, but not so supreme as to be your creator. This line of thought is often used to help people deal with their problems, or Step 1 as it is often called. However, if this is the case, then you are debating the degree of supremacy. For a discussion of this topic, Genesis 1:26,31 is relevant. This verse implies that man is master of all life upon the earth and in the skies and in the seas. So there are degrees of supremacy, but only through delegation from the Creator.