Jump to content


Photo

Static Unviverse Vs. Evolving Universe


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
20 replies to this topic

#1 KBC id

KBC id

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Atlanta, Ga.

Posted 07 December 2011 - 10:59 AM

Hi all.

I think I may have stumbled onto a way to answer an age old question of old earth vs. young and as a consequence the assertion of an evolving universe but I would first like to ask a few questions to ensure that I am representing the various parties correctly as I have no wish to offend by erronious understandings. So, if someone would be so kind pls. try and answer the following questions;

1) A YEC would say that the universe and all its planetary bodies was created from the beginning correct?

2) An OEC would say the universe is still being formed correct?

3) Evolutionists would say the ubniverse is in a constant state of evolution correct?

Thx everyone.

#2 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 07 December 2011 - 11:05 AM

Pretty close. But don't forget the micro planet equivocation. "Since we observe small bodies being attracted to larger ones by gravity, then cosmic evolution must be true." LOL



Enjoy.

#3 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 07 December 2011 - 01:44 PM

Hi all.

I think I may have stumbled onto a way to answer an age old question of old earth vs. young and as a consequence the assertion of an evolving universe but I would first like to ask a few questions to ensure that I am representing the various parties correctly as I have no wish to offend by erronious understandings. So, if someone would be so kind pls. try and answer the following questions;

1) A YEC would say that the universe and all its planetary bodies was created from the beginning correct?

2) An OEC would say the universe is still being formed correct?

3) Evolutionists would say the ubniverse is in a constant state of evolution correct?

Thx everyone.


I can't speak for YECs or OEC, but in my opinion 'evolution' is not an appropriate term to apply to the universe. Your third point would read better to me along the lines of, "Non-creationists would say the universe is in a constant state of change according to the laws of physics, some of which are understood, some not".
  • Mat Hunt likes this

#4 KBC id

KBC id

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Atlanta, Ga.

Posted 07 December 2011 - 04:12 PM

Pretty close. But don't forget the micro planet equivocation. "Since we observe small bodies being attracted to larger ones by gravity, then cosmic evolution must be true." LOL


When I read this I about split a gut.

Is it murder if I die whilst laughing at your intentional funny?

For me the important part really is that I get the YEC vs. OEC descriptions correct. I really don't think its possible to get the evolutionist one right because as soon as someone tries to define it they change the meaning ;).

It is my understanding from my own reading of the biblical texts that if God performed his creative acts in the first 6 days and ended the acts of creation to rest on the 7th then the universe and all the stars and planets can do nothing more than break down. Does this sound right? I remember reading that the whole of creation suffers from the original sin which would include all the stars and their planets right? Devolution should be the norm and any predictive points from YEC's or for that matter ID people such as myself who see things as designed should follow the same logic that natural or continuous forces of nature cannot build-up but rather can only deteriorate from an original design rich beginning.

#5 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 07 December 2011 - 04:13 PM

I can't speak for YECs or OEC, but in my opinion 'evolution' is not an appropriate term to apply to the universe. Your third point would read better to me along the lines of, "Non-creationists would say the universe is in a constant state of change according to the laws of physics, some of which are understood, some not".

Using the word "dynamic" instead would probably draw an even clearer distinction.

#6 KBC id

KBC id

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Atlanta, Ga.

Posted 07 December 2011 - 04:31 PM

in my opinion 'evolution' is not an appropriate term to apply to the universe. Your third point would read better to me along the lines of, "Non-creationists would say the universe is in a constant state of change according to the laws of physics, some of which are understood, some not".


Unfortunately, there are only 2 sides.... it was either designed which means a creator or the flip side where evolutionist say natural forces caused everything in shich case it was not designed. Soooo we can try and be nice and sugarcoat things but I am looking at things as clearly and simply as I can.

If a person says that something happened or is happening based strictly on the causal effects of natural forces they are evolutionists. Which kind of evolutionist is further defined like: biological evolution, chemical evolution, or in this case Cosmic evolution. All of these various sub-categories of evolutionist will at some point assert that nature did it. So I call a spade a spade not out of disrespect but rather simplicity.
  • digitalartist likes this

#7 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 07 December 2011 - 04:51 PM

When I read this I about split a gut.

Is it murder if I die whilst laughing at your intentional funny?


Even funnier because it's true. You will also see known scientific laws brushed aside to account for star formation.


It is my understanding from my own reading of the biblical texts that if God performed his creative acts in the first 6 days and ended the acts of creation to rest on the 7th then the universe and all the stars and planets can do nothing more than break down. Does this sound right? I remember reading that the whole of creation suffers from the original sin which would include all the stars and their planets right? Devolution should be the norm and any predictive points from YEC's or for that matter ID people such as myself who see things as designed should follow the same logic that natural or continuous forces of nature cannot build-up but rather can only deteriorate from an original design rich beginning.


Yes. Order doesn't arise from disorder. Without a miracle, there is no escape from physical laws. It's important to include the testimony and knowledge of antagonistic witnesses that have no motive in supporting creation. When citing known laws from creation scientists it is brushed aside as biased or when it's from the opposition it's called quote mining. I find it incredible that these rhetorical claims must be made to support a provably wrong hypothesis.

The Universe And Dr. Einstein, "The sun is slowly but surely burning out, the stars are dying embers, and everywhere in the cosmos heat is turning into cold, matter is dissolving into radiation, and energy is being dissipated into empty space. The universe is thus progressing to an ultimate 'heat death'....And there is no way of avoiding this destiny. For the fateful principle known as the second law of thermodynamics, which stands today as the principal pillar of classical physics left intact by the march of science, proclaims that the fundamental processes of nature are irreversible. Nature moves just one way." p.102

STARS "THEORETICALLY" IMPOSSIBLE, J. C. Brandt"Contemporary opinion on star formation holds that the objects called protostars are formed as condensations from interstellar gas. This condensation process is very difficult theoretically and no essential theoretical understanding can be claimed; in fact, some theoretical evidence argues strongly against the possibility of star formation. However, we know that the stars exist, and we must do our best to account for them.", Sun And Stars, p.111 Abraham Loeb, Harvard Center for Astrophysics, "The truth is that we don't understand star formation at a fundamental level." New Scientist, V.157, 2/7/1998, p.30 Derek Ward-Thompsom, Cardiff Univ. "Stars are among the most fundamental building blocks of the universe, yet the processes by which they are formed are not understood." Science, V.295, p.76, 1/4/2002 Geoffrey Burbidge, Director, Kitt Peak National Observatory, "If stars did not exist, it would be easy to prove that this is what we expect.", Stellar Structure, p.577 Genesis 2:1 "Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished."

GALAXIES "THEORETICALLY" IMPOSSIBLE, James Trefil,Physics, George Mason U., "It seems that the more we learn about the basic laws of nature, the more those laws seem to tell us that the visible matter–the stuff we can see–shouldn't be arranged the way it is. There shouldn't be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn't be grouped together the way they are. ...The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn't be there, yet there they sit. It's hard to convey the frustration that this simple fact induces among scientist...Despite what you may read in the press, we still have no answer to the question of why the sky is full of galaxies..." Dark Side Of The Universe, 1988, pp.2, 55 Martin Rees, "The most basic questions about galaxies are still not understood. If galaxies didn't exist, we would have no problem explaining that fact.", Dallas Morning News, 8/15/1988

ORIGIN OF SOLAR SYSTEM, Sir H. Jeffries Cambridge, "I think all suggested accounts of the origin of the Solar System are subject to serious objections. The conclusion in the present state of the subject would be that the system cannot exist.", The Earth, 1970, p.359. Fred Whipple, Harvard "All of the hypotheses so far presented have failed, or remain unproved, when physical theory is properly applied." Orbiting The Sun, 1981, p.284. Ida, Canup, & Stewart, "Many models have been proposed for the formation of the Moon, but no one has succeeded in showing the formation satisfactorily." Nature, V.389, 9/25/1997, p. 353 Nafi Toksoz, M.I.T., "It's far easier to explain why the moon shouldn't be there than to explain its existence.", Science 81, 3/81, p.120. Stuart Ross Taylor, Lunar and Planetary Institute, "The ultimate origin of the solar system’s angular momentum remains obscure." Solar System Evolution: A New Perspective Cambridge University Press, p.53 "All in all, developing a theory of lunar origins that could make sense of data obtained from the Apollo lunar landing programme proved very difficult. So much so, in fact, that when I took a class on our planetary system from Irvin Shapiro two decades ago, he joked that the best explanation was observational error — the moon did not exist." Nature, V.389, 9/25/1997, p.327



Enjoy.

#8 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 07 December 2011 - 04:54 PM

1) A YEC would say that the universe and all its planetary bodies was created from the beginning correct?

2) An OEC would say the universe is still being formed correct?


As far as this goes, I see no difference. Creationists in general believe that matter originated from God, and was formed into celestial bodies "in the beginning". After this, matter has been affected by both God and the curse. Why would the age of the matter...matter?

#9 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 07 December 2011 - 05:46 PM

I also don't understand what evolution has to do with it. I thought we were disputing the origin of the matter, not whether or not it is changing over time, which is observable. To say that it is evolving begs the question, evolving into what? Is there evidence that the universe is becoming more complex somehow?

#10 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 988 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 08 December 2011 - 12:33 AM

"Even funnier because it's true. You will also see known scientific laws brushed aside to account for star formation."

we did debate star formation in the past. Including some problems with that. Someone pulled a formula that given a big enough gas cloud, the gravity would become strong enough to pull it together. Can't recall the details, but star formation is an interesting subject.

#11 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 08 December 2011 - 08:43 AM


Unfortunately, there are only 2 sides.... it was either designed which means a creator or the flip side where evolutionist say natural forces caused everything in shich case it was not designed. Soooo we can try and be nice and sugarcoat things but I am looking at things as clearly and simply as I can.

If a person says that something happened or is happening based strictly on the causal effects of natural forces they are evolutionists. Which kind of evolutionist is further defined like: biological evolution, chemical evolution, or in this case Cosmic evolution. All of these various sub-categories of evolutionist will at some point assert that nature did it. So I call a spade a spade not out of disrespect but rather simplicity.



I think I would like to see a cogent and factual explanation that logically, scientifically, and rationally provides how “natural forces caused everything”…



"Nature did it" is one of my favorite statements that evolutionists will use, then either deny using it, or deny the sentience that it implies! :laugh_point:

#12 KBC id

KBC id

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Atlanta, Ga.

Posted 08 December 2011 - 10:13 AM

Even funnier because it's true. You will also see known scientific laws brushed aside to account for star formation.


Its true? I thought you were kidding by way of analogy. If you could throw me some instances of this, both I and my library would be indebted to you.

Yes. Order doesn't arise from disorder. Without a miracle, there is no escape from physical laws. It's important to include the testimony and knowledge of antagonistic witnesses that have no motive in supporting creation. When citing known laws from creation scientists it is brushed aside as biased or when it's from the opposition it's called quote mining. I find it incredible that these rhetorical claims must be made to support a provably wrong hypothesis.


The order from disorder arguement I have debated many times and there always seems to be a grey area that we fall into where some form of order can provable be shown and then I have to fight the extrapolation problem with them. The extrapolation problem is just like the macro evolution based on micro evolution inference.
As I stated earlier or in another thread I personally don't care who brings evidence or logic. I weight the evidence and logic in and of itself. It is quite lame to devalue these things based on the specifications of the one delivering them.

STARS "THEORETICALLY" IMPOSSIBLE, GALAXIES "THEORETICALLY" IMPOSSIBLE, ORIGIN OF SOLAR SYSTEM


Ah I had none of these!!!
Excellent, excellent. I will review these and determine further if it is library worth. Initially though they look fine.

Why would the age of the matter...matter?


Ummm you lost me here. I have posed no question in regards to the age of matter. I am specifically looking for confirmation that either both types of creationists believe that all the stars and planets were formed "in the beginning" or that possibly OEC's think mayby it is still in a "Dynamic" (Spectre ;) ) formation process. Hope this clarifies.
So far Jason777 has confirmed the YEC POV as being what I stated. Now I need the OAC POV.

I also don't understand what evolution has to do with it. I thought we were disputing the origin of the matter, not whether or not it is changing over time, which is observable. To say that it is evolving begs the question, evolving into what? Is there evidence that the universe is becoming more complex somehow?


Evolution is a POV just like any other and as such cannot be a priori ruled out just as Intelligent design or creation for that matter. The actual dispute or debate in this thread has not yet begun since I have not yet posted what I believe may settle the debate once and for all. My position so far is to confirm a few points which I asked so that I don't misrepresent anyone and offend them. So I'm gathering in anticipation of asserting. Please bear with as I believe this will be worth the time invested.

I think I would like to see a cogent and factual explanation that logically, scientifically, and rationally provides how “natural forces caused everything”…


Ha. You sir are not the only one. I was born to be a mechanical engineer and I have to know how things work. I was taking things apart at 7 and I have not stopped since. As a side note, I seem to have no problem dissecting the evolutionary arguements. Just can't seem to put them back together again as the parts change before I can do it ;).

"Nature did it" is one of my favorite statements that evolutionists will use, then either deny using it, or deny the sentience that it implies!


The way I see it nature at its best imposes environmental forces on organisations of matter, that is all it does. It makes no choices in and of itself. The choices such as the survivability of any organised form of matter were made during its formation. Nature simply enforced the decision if that makes sense to you.
An example would be if I were to build a car from styrofoam using the same shapes we currently use for metal then natural forces will apply its standard continuous forces and the car will fail. Nature is simply the environment with specifiable variables that intelligent design needs to account for in the original design.

My parents were devout christians their whole lives and they had a very static POV that I find quite comforting. They were also adamant that no one should be forced to believe in anything, which is why I was encouraged to explore and understand things in my own way. Evolution and evolutionists tend to rub me in exactly the opposite direction and in truth they shouldn't if their POV is properly and scientifically backed and frankly I don't understand the hostility... isnt this supposed to be science?

I have landed here on these forums in the hope of regaining that same comfort zone I had with my parents where I could explore a variety of subjects without having to deal with hate and discontent on what should be rational and logical discussion.
The parents POV was always that I will dicover the truth no matter where I look... the important part was that I should look.

#13 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 09 December 2011 - 06:56 AM

Evolution is a POV just like any other and as such cannot be a priori ruled out just as Intelligent design or creation for that matter.


If you will notice, I did not try to rule it out as you said, I was asking how the term "evolution" has anything to do with the changing of matter in the universe. I guess you could claim that a star forming would be matter evolving, but I think that is taking the word evolution out of context. I think atheistic naturalism describes the POV far better.

#14 KBC id

KBC id

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Atlanta, Ga.

Posted 09 December 2011 - 10:47 AM

If you will notice, I did not try to rule it out as you said, I was asking how the term "evolution" has anything to do with the changing of matter in the universe. I guess you could claim that a star forming would be matter evolving, but I think that is taking the word evolution out of context. I think atheistic naturalism describes the POV far better.


Here is how Evolutionists view Cosmic evolution;

...There are basically two orientations that can be taken here. One is to follow the sequence of Time, the other Evolution. The word "evolution" is here used in two different contexts. One, systems theory, explains the natural world in terms of the emergence of progressively more complex structures. This is Evolution in the sense of the big picture, aka Cosmic Evolution. The other is biological (darwinian) evolution, which involves the process of natural selection acting in in populations of species, as well as ecosystems and communities. Biological evolution is only one subset of systems theory understanding of evolution. There is also cosmic, galactic, stellar, planetary, mineral, geological, socio-cultural, technological, and other forms of evolution.
http://palaeos.com/c...tion/index.html

In order for us all to be able to communicate with various scientific concepts we should all at least see what they think it means and then work off that basis so there is no arguing past each other. To an evolutionist everything "evolved", matter, stars, planets, life etc etc... The only difference is the mechanism they define as causal to make evolution happen for the various types of evolution. In their minds every physical thing is in a state of evolutionary change that includes the buildup and breakdown of complexity.
Creationists and ID people don't buy into the buildup of complexity part and insist that an intelligent designer caused the initial state of formation.
So when I state the term cosmic evolution I am meaning the "meaning" that they have applied to it. A consistent changing of state of matter that spans the range from simple to complex organization and back to simple in a continuous progression.

#15 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 10 December 2011 - 07:34 PM

...There are basically two orientations that can be taken here. One is to follow the sequence of Time, the other Evolution. The word "evolution" is here used in two different contexts. One, systems theory, explains the natural world in terms of the emergence of progressively more complex structures.

In what way are there progressively more complex structures forming in the universe? Formation of stars, galaxies, black holes? We would not call the formation of mountains "evolution of mountains" nor the changing shape of a coastline "coastal evolution", so I do not see why the rearranging of matter in space would be referred to as cosmic evolution.

In their minds every physical thing is in a state of evolutionary change that includes the buildup and breakdown of complexity.

Evolution includes the breakdown of complexity?

In order for us all to be able to communicate with various scientific concepts we should all at least see what they think it means and then work off that basis so there is no arguing past each other.

Yes but when someone uses the term evolution to push an agenda rather than promote a better understanding of the scientific concept, it should be pointed out.

#16 KBC id

KBC id

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Atlanta, Ga.

Posted 10 December 2011 - 09:03 PM

In what way are there progressively more complex structures forming in the universe? Formation of stars, galaxies, black holes? We would not call the formation of mountains "evolution of mountains" nor the changing shape of a coastline "coastal evolution", so I do not see why the rearranging of matter in space would be referred to as cosmic evolution.


In the mind of an evolutionist the all encompassing concept is change over time. For them change includes either direction for simple to complex. But to be honest with you I don't understand their belief system either. Being agnostic gives me a sort of unique position simply because I don't accept just so stories... from anyone. If you have an assertion thats fine, if you want me to believe it then expect me to ask for the evidence to back your position otherwise, your assertion remains a concept to me. The one thing we should always be carefull of is that when 2 differing people with differing concepts try to communicate in places such as this forum we need to ensure that we are speaking about the same definable points. I have always found it harder to meet in the middle with evolutionists as compared to creationists. In most cases the creationist don't hold my non-belief against me when we converse. My parents also never held it against me as they believed as long as I'm looking I will eventually come to the truth they were convinced was at the end of the search.

Evolution includes the breakdown of complexity?


yes. If you look closely at the current arguements dealing with irreducible complexity evolutionists posit that such systems arise from a greater complexity which becomes lost as various chemistries used in other places recombine into a new function. They assert that the reason we can't currently do knockout experiments to see how an apparently irreducibly complex mechanism gradually formed is because many of the mechanisms that these other chemistries originally worked in before being recruited into the new mechanism have been removed from the dna's coding. Thus a loss of complexity as the mechanism has become better functioning but more streamlined. Think of it this way, at one time it required a team of 8-12 horses to pull the same weight as a modern small engine. So in the past they assumed that there were more components doing the work of less components now... the components simply rearanged themselves and got rid of the unneeded extra parts lol. Amazing what the nature god can do with the right amount of belief right?

Yes but when someone uses the term evolution to push an agenda rather than promote a better understanding of the scientific concept, it should be pointed out.


I agree 100%. At no time should bias influence the evidence in hand nor should anyone make inferences beyond the evidence. In a way its kinda nice to be agnostic as I have no need to push a belief system because essentially I don't have one to push. This leaves me free to focus on what the evidence itself allows for inference. The one conclusion I am sure of so far is that life did not naturally form. Beyond that will require more evidence than I have currently seen for me to choose what the actual cause was. In the meantime I have found that I prefer the company and communication with creationists far and above the evolutionists hate and discontent position.

#17 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 10 December 2011 - 11:23 PM

I guess we'll see what happens with your inquiry. I am curious what will come of it.

#18 digitalartist

digitalartist

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New York, NY

Posted 13 December 2011 - 10:34 AM

If a person says that something happened or is happening based strictly on the causal effects of natural forces they are evolutionists. Which kind of evolutionist is further defined like: biological evolution, chemical evolution, or in this case Cosmic evolution. All of these various sub-categories of evolutionist will at some point assert that nature did it. So I call a spade a spade not out of disrespect but rather simplicity.


Your definition is too broad. By way of example: Do you believe that temperatures 32 degrees F or colder will freeze water? If you do, by your own definition, you would be an evolutionist since you attribute it to the temperature and not an act of God.

#19 KBC id

KBC id

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Atlanta, Ga.

Posted 13 December 2011 - 11:05 AM

Your definition is too broad. By way of example: Do you believe that temperatures 32 degrees F or colder will freeze water? If you do, by your own definition, you would be an evolutionist since you attribute it to the temperature and not an act of God.


ummm not really.... I have empirical evidence to prove such an assertion.
The assertion you clipped was referencing to assertions made without proper empirical backing. although not stated it is intended as a given within the context of the point I was making.

#20 digitalartist

digitalartist

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New York, NY

Posted 13 December 2011 - 11:33 AM

ummm not really.... I have empirical evidence to prove such an assertion.
The assertion you clipped was referencing to assertions made without proper empirical backing. although not stated it is intended as a given within the context of the point I was making.


If you have empirical evidence that God created the cold which froze the water or froze the water himself then you are correct. Otherwise, the natural forces, which can be observed, (the temperature of the air and water and the observation of the water becoming ice) would be used in this case. The empirical evidence has been in plain sight, so to speak, for a long time. You put a tray of water in your freezer and after a period of time you have ice cubes.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users