This is is a surprise to me. I thought the foundation stone of evolutionary science was that infinite mass was created spontaneously.
It's amazing how many people have a complete ignorance of what "evolutionary science" means.
By "evolutionary science" I refer to all scientists who hold to the faith of evolution. It's a broad church, in the sense that it covers many fields, but each field is equally intolerant of heresy.
Registered: 11/16/07
Posts: 189
Loc: United States
Originally Posted By: picturepaws
This is is a surprise to me. I thought the foundation stone of evolutionary science was that infinite mass was created spontaneously. If I remember correctly, it goes something like this:
As far as I'm aware, this whole "something from nothing" business is just a strawman set up by theists who would like nothing more than to make science look like the backward and regressive ideology. Can you say projection?
Last I checked though, real scientists have this to say when asked where matter first came from: "We do not have conclusive evidence to say what happened before the Big Bang or where matter came from." I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain this is what real science has to say on the matter.
_________________________
1. Rose Byrne 2. Alice Greczyn 3. Karen Gillan 4. Emma Roberts 5. Camilla Belle 6. Nastia Liukin 7. Mila Kunis 8. Daveigh Chase 9. Zoe Saldana 10. Gemma Arterton
Yes because science relies on witch trials, inquisitions, excommunication and disfellowshipment to promote their version of truth.
The random creation theory is supported by the majority of scientists/physicists mathmaticians. However....not everyone in any of the fields is in agreement as to exactly how the universe came to be in the first place. What caused the Big Bang,what came before...etc, etc
To reverse your question as to which god is the the real god, this can very well be applied to the question of which scientific theory actually answers the Origin of Everything...There are so many theories out there but which one is the truth?
And for the evolution and origin of life. Evolution cannot be possible without explaining how life got started in the first place.
Edited by 1oldminer (07/19/1003:07 PM)
_________________________
To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible". ~Thomas Aquinas
As far as I'm aware, this whole "something from nothing" business is just a strawman set up by theists who would like nothing more than to make science look like the backward and regressive ideology. Can you say projection?
Not all theists....
LDS doctrine never claims that God created something from nothing...ex-nilho, as it is some religious doctrines state.For matter and energy cannot created nor destroyed. They can change from one state into another. God had command of the elements and took them and fashioned a planet/Earth (among other worlds, which are without number he created them from elements and materials already available)
Quote:
Last I checked though, real scientists have this to say when asked where matter first came from: "We do not have conclusive evidence to say what happened before the Big Bang or where matter came from." I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain this is what real science has to say on the matter.
I believe there are some questions as this time that are beyond science alone and our ability to comprehend the answers.I believe that one day all things will be revealed.
_________________________
To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible". ~Thomas Aquinas
#2734712 - 07/19/1008:19 PMRe: Study pushes back dawn of multicellular life on Earth
[Re: FTA]
MDanel93
Hathaway of impressing you
Registered: 03/05/04
Posts: 2274
Loc: Colorado
Originally Posted By: FTA
Last I checked though, real scientists have this to say when asked where matter first came from: "We do not have conclusive evidence to say what happened before the Big Bang or where matter came from." I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain this is what real science has to say on the matter.
Not taking sides here, as my position has always been that religion and science can be compatible. But one question with regards to what you said here: If science has concluded that "matter can neither be created nor destroyed," how can they also conclude that "we don't have enough evidence to say where matter came from"? Doesn't the former statement make the latter statement a bit of a back-stepping accommodation?
_________________________
My Top Fifteen Ladies: 1. S. Coffey; 2. A. Heard; 3. D. Agron; 4. E. Van Camp; 5. K. McPhee; 6. Y. Strahovski; 7. S. Keibler; 8. L. Meester; 9. B. Lively; 10. Lights; 11. R. Jones; 12. S. Black D'Elia; 13. M.E. Winstead; 14. I. Fisher; 15. E. Rossum
Registered: 12/28/04
Posts: 9655
Loc: In a country with no army =)
Originally Posted By: picturepaws
Originally Posted By: cobalt
Mass cannot be created spontaneously
This is is a surprise to me. I thought the foundation stone of evolutionary science was that infinite mass was created spontaneously. If I remember correctly, it goes something like this:
Mass can be created by an immense amount of energy.
Amazingly, the Scriptures already mentioned this.
“Raise YOUR eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing. -Isaiah 40: 26
_________________________ Crushingly Beautiful (tm) Ladies - (as of March 31st, 2013)
Registered: 11/16/07
Posts: 189
Loc: United States
Originally Posted By: MDanel93
Not taking sides here, as my position has always been that religion and science can be compatible. But one question with regards to what you said here: If science has concluded that "matter can neither be created nor destroyed," how can they also conclude that "we don't have enough evidence to say where matter came from"? Doesn't the former statement make the latter statement a bit of a back-stepping accommodation?
In our universe with our current physical laws, yes, matter can be neither created nor destroyed. However, I believe that it's generally accepted that those physical laws were created when the Big Bang occurred. Who can say what they were before that, if any existed at all. And that's if "what happened before the Big Bang" is even a meaningful question. Let's not forget that before the Big Bang, there was no space. Without space, we have no time. "Before" is likely a meaningless term in a timeless universe where human notions of cause and effect go right out the window.
_________________________
1. Rose Byrne 2. Alice Greczyn 3. Karen Gillan 4. Emma Roberts 5. Camilla Belle 6. Nastia Liukin 7. Mila Kunis 8. Daveigh Chase 9. Zoe Saldana 10. Gemma Arterton
Registered: 12/28/04
Posts: 9655
Loc: In a country with no army =)
When current scientific thinking pushes us into a corner we can't get out of without taking into account a supernatural possibility, we'd question "if "what happened before the Big Bang" is even a meaningful question."
Convenient.
Every understanding of the reality of our existence hangs from finding the cause for the greatest effect: the universe itself. Without a reason for the beginning of things, all else collapses.
Well, food for thought: is the reason for the existence of the universe not that important, or is it the very first thing that must be established?
For those who believe in God's Word, we know He had it written as the very first thing we needed to understand: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Genesis 1:1
_________________________ Crushingly Beautiful (tm) Ladies - (as of March 31st, 2013)