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.

Pastimes : Ask God -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gregory D. John who wrote (16215)	5/23/1998 12:52:00 PM
From: DLL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39621

Greg; Such a pleasure to share with someone willing to do so honestly and from logical analysis. I would like to ask if we could back the discussion up a bit. I believe that our assumptions will color our beliefs so that a degree of reality is lost. I begin with the assumption that some force outside of our understood dimensionality had do be the first cause of creation. Physics has determined that space, time, and matter was created at the instant of the Big Bang. This can be difficult to understand. The Big Bang was not an event that happened in the void of space. Rather as the expansion of matter occurred, space was also defined. The measurement of the expansion defined time. Time is a physical property that is relative to mass, speed and location. Physics has measured this and it is no longer controversial. A clock on a space ship travelling near the speed of light runs at a different rate than on earth. The same clock in orbit runs different than at the surface of earth. But I digress. What this means ultimately is that the universe is finite and did have a beginning. Before it began there was nothing. Not even space. This is why by definition, the first cause had to be from another dimension than we understand. This can only be understood through a sort of faith, as we, being three-dimensional could never grasp this force, let alone experiment with it. On the other hand, if we begin with the assumption of naturalism, then any supernatural cause must be rejected. I would suggest this is why you favor choice <<a. there were such species, but there do not exist fossil records>> If this is the case, evolution is anything but certain. Why with such poor evidence is it taught and accepted by so many as fact? I believe it is because of their assumptions, not logic or evidence. I would welcome a discussion of why you favor this possibility. What first cause can you imagine? Back to fossils. I do agree that fossilization is rare. However, random number theory would expect for some transitional forms to have been discovered. A reptile with half a wing for example as it slowly changed to a bird. What use would half a wing be I don't know. As mutation slowly occurred the full range from a nub at the shoulder to a fully formed wing must have happened. The same processes of fossilization must have been present during the time this painfully slow (to the reptile dragging around a half non functioning wing :0)so as to produce evidence. My mind tells me that there should actually be more of these transitions and dead ends than there are final products. I must ask where are they? This argument does not come from my assumptions about God. Many evolutionists are bringing up this issue. For example Steven J Gould of Harvard University suggests the idea of punctuated evolution, in which giant leaps occur among periods of little or no change. This idea has been called the hopeful monster theory. It suggests that a reptile laid and egg, and a bird flew out of it. This seems to me to be an obvious attempt to protect the assumptions rather than examine the evidence. We have never witnessed a beneficial mutation, let alone the birth of a new species. I am rambling now, as this is a very large subject. Could you help me to limit it to smaller bytes (is that dejavu or have we tried that before). Can we also agree that the Creationist approach is a reasonable possibility, and that those who may pursue it are not necessarily brain dead fundamentalists with a social agenda. If only two possibilities exist, shouldn't both be fully explored? I do enjoy your approach to conversation. May the Lord (or nature take your pick) richly bless and your family. Since I don't think nature hears or cares, I will pray Yeshua bless you with a wonderful holiday. In Yeshua's name - DLL