Which Came First Creation Or Evolution?

[edthecynic]

We know from this one the laws of nature were already in place.

That's right the laws of NATURE, not God!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[ding]

Heat flows from hot to cold. As time approaches infinity, the temperature of objects within the universe will seek equilibrium. Right?

I love getting you to repeat that STUPIDITY over and over because you do not realize just how STUPID it is!!!!!

Now how many times have I shown you that thermal equilibrium cannot be reached? Do you realize that even your above statement proves what I have said? Probably not even after I highlighted the parts that prove what I said!!!

March 01, 2012
RUSH: To put it bluntly, dumb people are too dumb to know it." It's a blessing! You know, the worst thing would be to be dumb and to know it -- and there's evidence all over that the dumb do not know they're dumb.

I think your problem is that you don’t understand my point is that the universe had a beginning.

This has been proven a myriad of ways one of which is the second law of thermodynamics.

Your argument for the beginning of the universe is moronic, but you knew that already. The imaginary thermal equilibrium has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe, or anything else for that matter. And you have already proven in other threads that you know nothing about the SLoT.

And finally whether the universe had a beginning has nothing to do with your pontificated lie that energy had a beginning!!!!

That’s funny because it isn’t my argument. It is the argument of Alexander Vilinken.

 

[ding]

We know from this one the laws of nature were already in place.

That's right the laws of NATURE, not God!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One in the same.

 

[edthecynic]

Heat flows from hot to cold. As time approaches infinity, the temperature of objects within the universe will seek equilibrium. Right?

I love getting you to repeat that STUPIDITY over and over because you do not realize just how STUPID it is!!!!!

Now how many times have I shown you that thermal equilibrium cannot be reached? Do you realize that even your above statement proves what I have said? Probably not even after I highlighted the parts that prove what I said!!!

March 01, 2012
RUSH: To put it bluntly, dumb people are too dumb to know it." It's a blessing! You know, the worst thing would be to be dumb and to know it -- and there's evidence all over that the dumb do not know they're dumb.

I think your problem is that you don’t understand my point is that the universe had a beginning.

This has been proven a myriad of ways one of which is the second law of thermodynamics.

Your argument for the beginning of the universe is moronic, but you knew that already. The imaginary thermal equilibrium has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe, or anything else for that matter. And you have already proven in other threads that you know nothing about the SLoT.

And finally whether the universe had a beginning has nothing to do with your pontificated lie that energy had a beginning!!!!

That’s funny because it isn’t my argument. It is the argument of Alexander Vilinken.

Now you are blaming your lie that energy had a beginning on Vilinken.

You do know that even he admits energy always existed in the forms of negative energy and positive energy in equal AMOUNTS. So it is YOUR perversion of Vilinken!

 

[edthecynic]

We know from this one the laws of nature were already in place.

That's right the laws of NATURE, not God!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One in the same.

Then God is NOT supernatural and didn't create any religions.

 

[BreezeWood]

bond: Maybe creation scientist Sir Isaac Newton was right in his calculations that the world will end in 2060.

and maybe when the asphalt jungle is uninterrupted from sea to shining sea the creationist will have solved their fear of evolution by having destroyed everything it represented, Garden Earth and in the mean time their own existence.

 

[ding]

Heat flows from hot to cold. As time approaches infinity, the temperature of objects within the universe will seek equilibrium. Right?

I love getting you to repeat that STUPIDITY over and over because you do not realize just how STUPID it is!!!!!

Now how many times have I shown you that thermal equilibrium cannot be reached? Do you realize that even your above statement proves what I have said? Probably not even after I highlighted the parts that prove what I said!!!

March 01, 2012
RUSH: To put it bluntly, dumb people are too dumb to know it." It's a blessing! You know, the worst thing would be to be dumb and to know it -- and there's evidence all over that the dumb do not know they're dumb.

I think your problem is that you don’t understand my point is that the universe had a beginning.

This has been proven a myriad of ways one of which is the second law of thermodynamics.

Your argument for the beginning of the universe is moronic, but you knew that already. The imaginary thermal equilibrium has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe, or anything else for that matter. And you have already proven in other threads that you know nothing about the SLoT.

And finally whether the universe had a beginning has nothing to do with your pontificated lie that energy had a beginning!!!!

That’s funny because it isn’t my argument. It is the argument of Alexander Vilinken.

Now you are blaming your lie that energy had a beginning on Vilinken.

You do know that even he admits energy always existed in the forms of negative energy and positive energy in equal AMOUNTS. So it is YOUR perversion of Vilinken!

His exact words. It is possible for energy to have a beginning.

 

[ding]

We know from this one the laws of nature were already in place.

That's right the laws of NATURE, not God!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One in the same.

Then God is NOT supernatural and didn't create any religions.

No one said God created religions. He created existence. Supernatural is a construct of man.

 

[edthecynic]

I love getting you to repeat that STUPIDITY over and over because you do not realize just how STUPID it is!!!!!

Now how many times have I shown you that thermal equilibrium cannot be reached? Do you realize that even your above statement proves what I have said? Probably not even after I highlighted the parts that prove what I said!!!

March 01, 2012
RUSH: To put it bluntly, dumb people are too dumb to know it." It's a blessing! You know, the worst thing would be to be dumb and to know it -- and there's evidence all over that the dumb do not know they're dumb.

I think your problem is that you don’t understand my point is that the universe had a beginning.

This has been proven a myriad of ways one of which is the second law of thermodynamics.

Your argument for the beginning of the universe is moronic, but you knew that already. The imaginary thermal equilibrium has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe, or anything else for that matter. And you have already proven in other threads that you know nothing about the SLoT.

And finally whether the universe had a beginning has nothing to do with your pontificated lie that energy had a beginning!!!!

That’s funny because it isn’t my argument. It is the argument of Alexander Vilinken.

Now you are blaming your lie that energy had a beginning on Vilinken.

You do know that even he admits energy always existed in the forms of negative energy and positive energy in equal AMOUNTS. So it is YOUR perversion of Vilinken!

His exact words. It is possible for energy to have a beginning.

Link

 

[edthecynic]

We know from this one the laws of nature were already in place.

That's right the laws of NATURE, not God!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One in the same.

Then God is NOT supernatural and didn't create any religions.

No one said God created religions. He created existence. Supernatural is a construct of man.

Mother Nature is a SHE!

 

[ding]

I think your problem is that you don’t understand my point is that the universe had a beginning.

This has been proven a myriad of ways one of which is the second law of thermodynamics.

Your argument for the beginning of the universe is moronic, but you knew that already. The imaginary thermal equilibrium has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe, or anything else for that matter. And you have already proven in other threads that you know nothing about the SLoT.

And finally whether the universe had a beginning has nothing to do with your pontificated lie that energy had a beginning!!!!

That’s funny because it isn’t my argument. It is the argument of Alexander Vilinken.

Now you are blaming your lie that energy had a beginning on Vilinken.

You do know that even he admits energy always existed in the forms of negative energy and positive energy in equal AMOUNTS. So it is YOUR perversion of Vilinken!

His exact words. It is possible for energy to have a beginning.

Link

Did our Universe have a Beginning? | Closer to Truth

 

[james bond]

We know from this one the laws of nature were already in place.

That's right the laws of NATURE, not God!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To the pantheists, nature is God so you're wrong. Atheists are usually wrong.

To Christians, the nature of God is more important than nature. We know that God is holy. He gave us the Ten Commandments, objective moral values and rules. How is it that all humans know these rules? What are the laws of nature but empiricism? Empiricism is a philosophy according to philosophy of religion.

 

[Taz]

Not the time and space of this universe, but they possibly already existed in others before.

It certainly came from somewhere but you still have a first cause conundrum.

So you agree that time and space probably existed before inflation. Good for you.

No. I agree that inflation is how time and space came to be.

So how do you know that time and space didn't already appear in another universe, or in a previous version of this one?

Doesn’t matter. We know from this one the laws of nature were already in place.

So time and space are laws of nature?

 

[edthecynic]

Your argument for the beginning of the universe is moronic, but you knew that already. The imaginary thermal equilibrium has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe, or anything else for that matter. And you have already proven in other threads that you know nothing about the SLoT.

And finally whether the universe had a beginning has nothing to do with your pontificated lie that energy had a beginning!!!!

That’s funny because it isn’t my argument. It is the argument of Alexander Vilinken.

Now you are blaming your lie that energy had a beginning on Vilinken.

You do know that even he admits energy always existed in the forms of negative energy and positive energy in equal AMOUNTS. So it is YOUR perversion of Vilinken!

His exact words. It is possible for energy to have a beginning.

Link

Did our Universe have a Beginning? | Closer to Truth

Nowhere does he say the "EXACT WORDS" It is possible for energy to have a beginning. He says there was positive energy and negative energy in equal amounts.

You lie as usual.

 

[james bond]

It certainly came from somewhere but you still have a first cause conundrum.

So you agree that time and space probably existed before inflation. Good for you.

No. I agree that inflation is how time and space came to be.

So how do you know that time and space didn't already appear in another universe, or in a previous version of this one?

Doesn’t matter. We know from this one the laws of nature were already in place.

So time and space are laws of nature?

Time and space are part of physics as well as philosophy just like laws of nature and empircism.

 

[BreezeWood]

We know from this one the laws of nature were already in place.

That's right the laws of NATURE, not God!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To the pantheists, nature is God so you're wrong. Atheists are usually wrong.

To Christians, the nature of God is more important than nature. We know that God is holy. He gave us the Ten Commandments, objective moral values and rules. How is it that all humans know these rules? What are the laws of nature but empiricism? Empiricism is a philosophy according to philosophy of religion.

.

To the pantheists, nature is God so you're wrong.

so you're wrong ...

not all nature is complete, physiological nature is transitional and is not in a state pantheistic divinity. the elements of the periodic table as a pure form do represent the pantheistic belief and their combinations as H2O would represent a being in pure form and divine. physiological beings do not fit the criteria of purity for them to be divine.

He (they) gave us the Ten Commandments, objective moral values and rules. How is it that all humans know these rules?

How is it that all humans know these rules ...

there is only one rule, purity in the form of good vs evil for all beings is why there is a distinct governance to nature however it is referred and certainly has nothing to do with a 4th century publication that has never simulated the single rule once throughout its entire existence.

 

[ding]

That’s funny because it isn’t my argument. It is the argument of Alexander Vilinken.

Now you are blaming your lie that energy had a beginning on Vilinken.

You do know that even he admits energy always existed in the forms of negative energy and positive energy in equal AMOUNTS. So it is YOUR perversion of Vilinken!

His exact words. It is possible for energy to have a beginning.

Link

Did our Universe have a Beginning? | Closer to Truth

Nowhere does he say the "EXACT WORDS" It is possible for energy to have a beginning. He says there was positive energy and negative energy in equal amounts.

You lie as usual.

Made you watch it.

Created from nothing means energy and matter were created without violating any conservation law and had a beginning.

Checkmate.

 

[ding]

It certainly came from somewhere but you still have a first cause conundrum.

So you agree that time and space probably existed before inflation. Good for you.

No. I agree that inflation is how time and space came to be.

So how do you know that time and space didn't already appear in another universe, or in a previous version of this one?

Doesn’t matter. We know from this one the laws of nature were already in place.

So time and space are laws of nature?

No. Created through the laws of nature by the creator.

 

[Taz]

So you agree that time and space probably existed before inflation. Good for you.

No. I agree that inflation is how time and space came to be.

So how do you know that time and space didn't already appear in another universe, or in a previous version of this one?

Doesn’t matter. We know from this one the laws of nature were already in place.

So time and space are laws of nature?

No. Created through the laws of nature by the creator.

Nice thought, too bad you can't prove it.

 

[ding]

No. I agree that inflation is how time and space came to be.

So how do you know that time and space didn't already appear in another universe, or in a previous version of this one?

Doesn’t matter. We know from this one the laws of nature were already in place.

So time and space are laws of nature?

No. Created through the laws of nature by the creator.

Nice thought, too bad you can't prove it.

I have proven it dozens of times. We can use our experience as a creator and our observations of creation.

But most of all we can test it by entering into a relationship with God and see what comes from it.