From: wolverine01@charter.net   
      
   On 11/6/2025 3:50 AM, G wrote:   
   > sticks  wrote:   
   >> On 11/5/2025 8:12 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>> On Tue, 4 Nov 2025 10:44:39 -0600, sticks    
   >>> wrote:   
   >>> [...]   
   >>>   
   >>>> I'm sure you'll love my sig   
   >>>   
   >>> It's one of those soundbites that seems very clever until you think   
   >>> about what it is actually saying.   
   >>   
   >> Nice backhand.  But, do you really think I haven't thought about the   
   >> meaning of what I wrote?  Many things are problematic with Darwin's   
   >> theory and materialism for me.  My comment to Mr. O about not ever   
   >> connecting the dots is something that is a reality and important for me   
   >> in my understanding of origins.  So, I'll give you one example of   
   >> something I have a problem with, and I assume the materialist doesn't.   
   >>   
   >> This is really a metaphysical question, and nothing new.  Yet, I find if   
   >> I go back to the beginning it creates a huge problem for me in believing   
   >> in an origin scenario along naturalistic lines.  Somehow materialists   
   >> have convinced the world they have the answer in how all this started   
   >> with the Big Bang Theory.  Yes, there are problems with the theory   
   >> people are still trying to work out, but I am not referring to either   
   >> that or inflation.   
   >>   
   >> I am talking about where the stuff came from the theory claims caused   
   >> the Big Bang.  You can speak about quantum theory and mostly that's   
   >> above my pay grade, and none of it ultimately matters.  For me it still   
   >> has to have had a cause for existence.  The laws of thermodynamics and   
   >> basic logic would tell you it had to come from somewhere, or else you   
   >> are left with only two alternatives.  Today, everything we can see   
   >> scientists can trace the origins of back to their theory of the Big   
   >> Bang.  Everything except where that stuff came from.   
   >>   
   >> The first choice of an answer is totally unacceptable since it is "not   
   >> science" to the materialist since it involves something supernatural.   
   >> God must have caused it.  Yes, the response from the naturalist would of   
   >> course be, "Then where did God come from?"  I do have my personal answer   
   >> to that question, but it is irrelevant to the question at hand.   
   >>   
   >> As far as I can gather, all the other explanations boil down to the   
   >> brute fact of, "It has always existed."  Mass or matter, energy, and   
   >> even the space.  The naturalist somehow is able to ignore the laws of   
   >> thermodynamics and even logic in this event and is comfortable with the   
   >> idea that the "stuff" has just been around for ever, that it has always   
   >> existed.  In effect, you are claiming that the universe has an uncaused   
   >> reality in this scenario, effectively giving it God like powers.   
   >>   
   >> If you accept that fine.  I simply cannot.  It had to come from   
   >> somewhere for me.  Of course this gets into not only the how, but the   
   >> "why" question.  But not for the naturalist.  They don't ask why, and   
   >> evidently are not bothered by the how.  That shocks me to be honest.   
   >> The motivation for doing so is interesting, but that's another   
   >> discussion, as is why so many are uninterested in even asking the   
   >> question.   
   >>   
   >> Starting at the beginning like this has led me to an increased interest   
   >> in origins, yet you would suggest I'm just a not so clever person   
   >> parroting some cool sounding soundbite I heard somewhere.  In reality   
   >> this is what I believe is the truth, and if discussion on things like   
   >> this topic on origins remain reasonable, I'm willing to expose myself   
   >> further.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Fine, have it your way. Your God created the Big Bang, or something   
   equivalent   
   > and then went away, how does this change the TOE? The TOE doesn't deal with   
   > the origin of the universe, or even the origin of life; it assumes that life   
   > exists and reproduces the way it does (hard to negate that), and tries to   
   find   
   > what the consequences are. If life just happened or arrived here from space,   
   > by chance or planted by some alien, or even if Your God popped in created the   
   > first replicating cell and went away again, that wouldn't change a iota in   
   the   
   > Teory of evolution, the evidence that support it would be exactly the same.   
      
      
   I will be honest and admit I have no idea how you have managed to not   
   only create a strawman argument from me, but made it in an area   
   completely separate from what we were talking about.   
      
      
      
   --   
   Science doesn't support Darwin.  Scientists do.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)