IamJoseph

I'd say your bad on both counts. One book introduced the universe as finite - the evidence says its expanding. That's a QED conclusion. I think it would be blasphemy for you to admit that. Sure, go ahead - don't forget to make a comparison with any other writings. However, you would be seen as more credible if you listed 5000 correct parts - from its millions of credible facts strew across its verses. Upto you, but its a sound idea for a thread of ticks on one side and crosses on another. Q. Name the first population cencus and the first alphabetical book?

No sir - it does not. Same spot has no real meaning, other than whatever some agenda based sci-fi artists wants to make of it. The said imprint can be commonplace to all life yet not align with your conclusion; the commonality can be imited to life per se. Call me when you show why no half way chimp-human living transits appear; why did the on-going process cease. There was yet no centre; yet no point. It is scientifically impossible for the universe to be initiated with one singular entity! Every stated discovery made by ToE advocates, including alledged fossil findings, have been proven wrong, false and corrupt.

Firstly, you are not responding to the points of the debate whatsoever. I stated the precedence factor rules concerning true monotheism. Otherwise anyone can put forth a new discovery the sun rises in the east. Secondly, your link is an embarrassment for any reasonable comprehension and examination. Why would you put only one Christian version of the Hebrew texts as a fulcrum, present only a view which is fictional and has nothing whatsoever to do with the texts quoted? Let's take up the factors made in your link and check if you have examned its veracity: 1. The earth was created in six days; the Creation Museum is sited; the Cambrian period is boastfully countered with. For your information, Genesis is the first document which stated the universe and the earth are billions of years old! A careful reading of the texts lists actions of primodial separations in the early formation of the universe: light from darkness [universal primodial action]; day from night [solar action of a unique critical focusing of light on one planet; earth]; water from land [earthly action]. These actions, totally disregarded, account for billions of years, listed prior to the advent of anticipated life on earth. As well, these are aligned with today's state of art science; introducing the advent of 'day' for the first time [as well as the 'week' later on] - well before the term billion and year yet existed. Of note that the creation days listed thereafter, prior to the emergence of life - are not 24 hour days but epochs of time: we see this when we examine the text carefully, whereby only the sun's luminosity is listed in these creational days, not the sun itself. Further, the Hebrew calendar - the oldest active one and the most accurate, begins 'AFTER' the creation cosmic days: why is that - did you even question it!? Of imense interest here is, the text is open to two controversial factors, but which amazingly are correct: that the 6000 applies to the advent of a unique speech endowed life form [humans]. Please show us a 'NAME' of a human more than 6000 years old? In fact you cannot even produce any history per se older than that. The other controversial factor is that the life forms were completed yet they were not alive [animated]; this occured only after the life sustaining cycle began [such as the rains and sunlight in ch. 2]. This is analogous to a car - it does not move even when completed in the show room - it still requires a trigger action of an ignition key and the driver! It is not possible to have life withut antipatory life sustaining actions, as listed in Genesis - a difference with ToE which says the eviroment around earth produced life and all its complexities in the past 4.5 B years. This is rediculous: life is a recent occurence in the earth's life span; all space bodies have almost similar environments ad elements yet no life. The choice is between a car beig the result of careful mental input - or occuring on its own. Only one of the latter falls within a science category! 2. The Noah story is cited. Again, here the text is read with a most corrupted and omissive lens. Totally disregarded is the preamble in the Noah story that it relates only to "Noah and his possessions and household" [the texts!]. IOW, this was a regional flood; one which ended in the same vicinity of Mount Ararat [the first recording of this historical icon]; backed by cross-nation reporting which affirm all the earth and all humans were not affected! Here, the terms of all life and mountains being covered are descriptions how the people in that town saw this only. The views of a Creation Museum in US are embarrasing, notwithstanding those Christian groups sincerely and genunely believe in their own views. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with a careful reading of the texts, which I present only from a scientific view. I have no interest in religions. I stopped reading the thrashy link half way down. Firstly, you are not responding to the points of the debate whatsoever. I stated the precedence factor rules concerning true monotheism. Otherwise anyone can put forth a discovery the sun rises in the east. Secondly, your link is an embarrassment for any reasonable comprehension and examination. Why would you put a Christian version of the Hebrew texts, present only a view which is fictional and has othing whatsoever to do with the texts quoted? Let's take up the factors made in your link and check if you have examned its veracity: 1. The earth was created in six days; the Creation Museum is sited; the Cambrian period is boastfully countered with. For your information, Genesis is the first document which stated the universe and the earth are billions of years old! A careful reading of the texts lists actions of separations: light from darkness [universal primodial action]; day from night [solar critical action of focusing light on earth]; water from land [earthly action]. These actions, totally disregarded, account for billions of years, listed prior to the advent of anticipated life on earth; are aligned with today's state of art science; introducing the advent of 'day' for the first time [as well as the 'week' later on] - well before the term billion and year yet existed. Of note that the creation days listed thereafter, prior to the emergence of life - are not 24 hour days but epochs of time: we see this when we examine the text carefully, whereby only the sun's luminosity is listed, not the sun itself. Further, the Hebrew calendar - the oldest active one and the most accurate, begins 'AFTER' the creation cosmic days: why is that - did you even question it!? Of imense interest here is, the text is open to two controversial factors, but which amazingly are correct: that the 6000 applies to the advent of a unique speech endowed life form [humans]. Please show us a 'NAME' of a human more than 6000 years old? In fact you cannot even produce any history per se older than that. The other controversial factor is that the life forms were completed yet they were not alive [animated]; this occured oly after the life sustaining cycle began [such as the rains and sunlight in ch. 2]. This is analogous to a car - it does not move even when completed in the show room - it still requires a trigger action of an ignition key and the driver! 2. The Noah story is cited. Again, here the text is read with a most corrupted and omissive lens. Totally disregarded is the preamble in the Noah story that it related only to "Noah and his possessions and household." IOW, this was a regional flood; one which ended in the same vicinity of Mount Ararat [the first recording of this historical icon]; backed by cross-nation reporting which affirm all the earth and all humans were not affected! Here, the terms of all life and amountains being covered are descriptions how the peple in that town saw this only. The views of a Creation Museum in US are embarrasing, notwithstanding those Christian groups sincerely and genunely believe in their own views. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with a careful reading of the texts, which I present only from a scietific view. I have no interest in religions. I stopped reading the thrashy link half way down.

All that does not atend the premise of an on-going process. Try again. And evolution is not a fact - its even disputed as a theory. It remains a bad copy lift off from Genesis, which even allows speciation: animals and humans are listed as land based animals and said to follow each other's kind. Hard copy text before the term evolution was coined. Deal with it! The fact ToE cannot pass the continuos process premise is the reason it resorts to eons of time as its proof. Genesis is not guilty of such a debacle. Its like saying go to Jupitor and look for a red rock. But those who have no proof make sure its far away. You also failed to attend that ToE is NOT a universal premise - so how can it be a 'fact'? You fail to accept that life reproduces with very manifest, observable and provable form via the seed factor - which evolution totally ignores, while not being able to evidence its claims without it. A lie by omission is a lie. First admit the facts about Genesis, then call theories as fact. Genesis does negate both the BBT & ToE; these are both proosed as theories, but they are only greasy kid stuff conjurings: if the universe is expanding this away, it must have come from that-away!. There is no 'ONE' in the universe; all actions require a minimum of two. There is no evolution without the seed factor. I suspect this is why you avoided to state which universe you are talking about: a finite or infinite one? Apples and oranges apply. This aligns with Genesis how the first life form in each specie originated: 'MAN AND WOMAN CREATED HE THEM' [dual-gendered in their initiation; then they seperated] 'In biology, a hermaphrodite is an organism that has reproductive organs normally associated with both male and female sexes.[1]' Life began as a dual-gendered entity. Read correctly that which you redicule? I don't think so, good debator colleague. The issue was not whether the marbles do not remain, but that they should continue manifesting this change [speciation] at all times; every single second; every single place - based on an on-going process premise. This is of course manifest with the Genesis mode of repro. Yes/no? That proves genesis, not ToE. The life forms emerged as they are today, save for non-fundamental changes. In fact a life form canot exist unless it comes in a fully completed form. Analogy: a car is not a car unless it is completed; the same applies to a zebra and a pineapple. We know that vegetation preceded animated life forms [first recorded in Genesis - I didn't hear you state this fact]. Did the pineapple come from a watermelon or vice versa? It that was the case then both were never pineapples or watermelons. The fact is we have no imprints of a speciation outside of a doctored lab - in all recorded history. Never did anyone claim they saw a tiger change to a cat - or that a cat never existed then it did. So you are limited to eons of time which none can touch. My pursuit is truth, wherever it comes from, and the truth is anyone can doctor a bone fossil to show how it fits to another bone fossil, then make outlandish, less than Star Trek, claims. They of course don't tell you that the same can be seen in billions of other examples, even when the bones belong to the same life form. The issue is too important to accept without absolute proof, one that does not rely on eons of time - because the time factor does not impact! The term 'seed' is a translation of a mysteries Hebrew term; not a bad translation either. It refers to an output of the host parents. And since a child is born with only this essence output, it is proof that the child is the result of this essence which contains 'ALL' data and info required for that life form to be complete - with no help required from any other sector, environment included. Yes, the dna [a chip with a directive program] is included in this essence. No, this does not come from external environmental forces. The birth of today's science began here - note the term 'yield', 'bearing', and 'after its kind': 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' You are getting somewhat desperate now. Just like those fundy religionists! Unlike Darwin - I don' know. The first step to knowing is to first acknwledge what you do not know.And then admit clearly what the ther side says and is vindicated. Like the 'seed' factor.

There's only one true monotheism. The term signifies ONE GOD - indefinable and indescribable, which no image can adequately capture. How can there be more than one!? Know where the buck stops. There is also only one finite universe. Both are recorded only in one document. That sir, is a factual statement and you cannot produce an earlier dcument which says so. The precedence factor rules.

Those are retrospective and varied, not the introduction platform, nor based on a universal picture. Which of them tells us the universe is finite and lists light as a primordial entity, or the emergence of life form groupings in their correct protocol? No, Genesis is not a Christian document. There is only one. Creationism is a scientific premise - one of only two possibilities for the universe's emergence. That is why we are quoting from only one document which stands up to debates in science forums. No, there is none and you have not mentioned one. To prempt, chaos is not even a theory: "CHAOS ON FILM: The bouncing motion of a tiny droplet on a soap film becomes unpredictable—a simple way to demonstrate chaos theory." All that so-called evidence says is we have not mustered the means of accounting all the impacts of trillions of factors. Nothing else. It is primitive and deceptive, akin to a coca cola bottle discovered by primitive people: it fell from the Gods, because they yet never knew about planes which can drp such a bottle on their heads. If a butterfly's wings impacts all things in the universe - it does not mean a complexity is the result of simple actions. It does not mean a butterfly's wings can impact an offspring; the seed remains the impacting factor here. We still don't know how the brain and eye works - but it does not mean these are the result of simple environmental atoms becoming more complex. Rocket science made simple: a lone particle cannot create an action - nor a universe which is finite and never existed before. It means the particles were yet not born to jitterbug either. Understand why you nor anyone else can supply any answers here! If the original foundation cannot be a result of a simple entity or set of trillion entitites [the environment] creating a universe [because they never yet existed] - then it follows this is not possible after the fact either. I was accused of bringing religious texts, when in fact I presented a scientific premise - which happened to be initiated in a religious writings. The response was not scientific. Now you say those who scientifically negate all your responses are not stupid - only their reasoning is stupid. Very kind of you if there is any difference here. Sure. Specially the part in HP's first introduction to humanity the universe is finite, that once everything was a formless mush with no laws [the reason there was no stars, pineapples or gravity laws], the first listing of Potter's list of life forms - and all given us in the first alphabetical book. Let's see the page and verse references in Harry Potter? Q. Is the premise of a universe maker when a universe is manifest - an unscetific premise? No! Its cause and effect. Q. Is the premise moot because we cannot prove the universe maker? No! Because this is generic - we cannot prove its antithesis either. Q. Do we have to prove a universe maker to make it a scientific premise? No! Because its proof may be a pre-universal construct, thereby well outside the human mind's wiring. Q. Do we have to prove there is no universe maker? Absolutely. The flat earth was not negated because Galeleo said so - he actually had to prove it - and he did! Q. Is there proof of a universe maker? Absolutely. When the proof factor cannot be grasped in a lab vise, then the 'sound premise' applies. Q. Does all this affect our daily lives? It does not alter how a car is made, but it does impact the premise if a car was found on Mars - there is a car maker on Mars - even if we cannot find that car maker - a sound premise. And a car making manual does not prove the car happened by simple metal elements become complex Mercs - because a butterfly's wings impacts everything! Q What do we know about origins - of anything? Zero. We do not know where stars or pineapples come from. We know only bits and pieces about things after the fact, namely when we start the descriptions well after the origins point. This is a dynamic clue as to the origins of the universe: it occured and its cause is outside of any criteria seen within the universe. Atoms, quarks, environment are post-universe factors. And there is no such thing as nature! The who-done-it factor hovers and applies unrelenting in every discussion forum around the world. Of note genesis begins with the second alphabet and says of the elusive first one: GO FORTH - DO NOT TURN BACK - THIS ANSWER IS BARRED.

Accumulation over time, and that this is an on-going process, not one which ceases, applies here. This says it must be manifest without pause, rendering the vacuum of continueing transitions a negation of this theory. Analogy: If red marbles turn to blue marbles over time as a continuos process, then we must see "red marbles turning blue" at "ALL" times. Regardless of what fosters those changes. Unless it is NOT an on-going process. It is also not a universe premise, as with 2+2 = 4, applying here or on the moon. An issue or output of the parent host. Without this seed factor, the environment and any other factors whatsoever become superfluous - to the extent it appears only the seed factor is pivotal, yet this is not even mentioned in ToE. The ancient Genesis wins here. No other meaning of the text description is possible to put on the table. Of note the scientific description of 'FOLLOWING THEIR KIND ['SPECIES/LIFE FORM GROUPS'] is mentioned; as well, this is said to be the consequence of the seed factor as the cause of reproduction. The description of 'FOLLOWING THEIR KIND' and aligned with this SEED transmission and repro can only refer to the directive data [chip?] as the instigator. One must not be turned off by deceptively simple writings here - one must allow for the terms dna not yet coined and that the text is directed to all generations, a feat in itself. We may have a totally different set of words and uderstanding a few geerations from now, making even Darwinism old hat. Of note, Darwin lifted everything from Genesis, including the first listing of life form groupings and sub-groupings in their correct protcol - an astonishing premise for its time and an alignment of today's sciences. It is a common buck passing. ToE, whether it specifically evades origins or not, nonetheless subscribes to its premise applying to origins. Referring me to another faculty of science does not fix the issue. Diversity has no connection with the premise its cause is anything other than the seed transmitting the particular directive of that diversity. A human child displays diversity among all other human children - yet we know this is the result of an internal program in the seed of the host parents which caters to this diversity, without negating that child being the resut of that transmission solely. Genesis wins in its introduction of the first recording the seed factor pertains to repro and species causation. Correct. That is why there has to be an external, independent, precedent and transcended force applying! I can see no other explanation applying, nor has anyone put one forward. Go ahead and name one - based on an absolutely finite universe - and we soon see why today's neo science runs far from the finite factor, clinging to pre- and parallel universes in utter desperation. MV is a violation of the finite factor! The the environment never existed at one time in a finite realm, nor does it manifest as the cause in any other planet or space body in the known universe to foster life. But I am not talking religion or theology. Why not read and respond scientifically to what the text says instead? Can you use that premise to thereby negate the universe being finite as wrong - because it is first introduced in Genesis? Nope! That is slight of hand casino science. Why does the environment not turn rocks to reptiles? Obviously, the reptile possess a program which allows it to use the forces around it for its own purposes - again making the seed as the fundamental factor here - because the end result is a reptile again, not a rock ['FOLLOWS ITS OWN KIND'!], and notably without impact from the time factor, manifesting itself continuously. The seed renders the environment an after the fact; as in a hot sunny environment fostering a darker skin color over time and exposure; nothing whatsoever to do with what offspring category results. If one subscribes to a finite universe, there is no alternative to a universe maker for a universe's emergence. The total lack of an aternative makes this a non-religious scientific fact, but one disdained by most scentific thought preferences. Nor is this a case of proving a negative; rather, it is the requirement of proof for a positive. Cause and effect, and a complexity being the result of a higher complexity, is the scientific positive here. It is legitimate not to know the origins of anything if these are resultant from a point before the universe was initiated; obviously, pre-universe constructs apply here, and only the B to Z can be known; the A remains rightly elusive.

I am not attacking you personally, only what your statements are attempting to justify as if you made a clever observation. Firstly, creationism was introduced in the Hebrew bible; it is the only scripture which does not subscribe to a flat earth, and speaks of one creator for the universe. It also introduced that the stars are unaccountable and contained in the universe; that the universe is finite and based this on the premise of a pristine monotheism. Most surprising, there were no head bashing half man/half lion deities, or Venus type gods battling for supremecy; in fact for the first time an invisible, indefinable and non quantifying creator was presented; for the first time, the formation of the universe is listed in scientific protocol: we see here primodial actions like darkness and light separations; water and land seperations anticipating life; life forms emerging in a correct series of epochs. All this may or may not be actualy true, but it is a most credible premise which remains the only theological statement which is vindicated and not refutable by science - because it is presented one of only two scientific possibilities. One must give credit where it is due before making it look ridiculous. Please show us another form or array of creationisms that got you so coonfused which I was referring to? I am also confused by your question, which you repeated more than once. Yes, correct. It is most reasonable to assume a complexity is the result of a more complex mind source. I know that some believe your PC is the result of jitterbugging quarks banging heads randomly over eons of time - but I was speaking scientifically only. How can you say all believers are stupid. Check the nobels, for instance. Any category you like. Understand the relevant and impacting question and respond with a scientific justification! I would be seriously appreciative if someone enlightened me if there is a true ONE in the universe and how it can perform an action without anything else as a counterpart. Also, how is it possible creationism is a bad arguement based on a finite universe.

There is much corruption in today's encyclopedia, which has seeped into humanity's psyches as facts. This is most seen in historical sectors. People read definitions which are based on opinions up to 1,500 years after the fact, seen when the footnote legends are examined. This is a result of the opinions being from those who have already made up their minds based on their beliefs only. And those beliefs can never be evidenced by contemporary references, and are usually antithetical to its real time facts. This can be seen when one tries to find any contemporary proof for any figure in the NT - one gets dizzy following all the spins and should question why we have no Christian dead sea scrolls when so many writers are mentioned - at a time when writings was commonplace? These are the kind of stuff which has become facts when we check for references. Equally, there is no proof of Moses. There is of david, which is not bad, seeing this is a 3,200 year figure. I am wondering why the Gospels failed to record a million Jews sacrificing their lives in the war with Rome in 70 CE: it begs the Q when was the Gospels written and by whom? Its like the NY Times not mentioning 9/11 on 9/12. I found that democrasy was introduced not by the Greeks but in the Hebrew bible! I found the first alphabetical book is not phoenecian but the Hebrew bible! I found that the oldest NAME of a human is recorded in the Hebrew bible! I found that all laws which turn the world are listed only in the Hebrew bible! Now these are facts - but not seen in references stemming from Europe and made widespread throughout the world. It means humanity is standing on rickety ground.We see that the two biggest religions - Christianity & Islam - are in insane contradiction of each other of the same space-times they believe in: both cannot be right - yet these will kill and die for those false beliefs. I say: HUSTON - WE HAVE A SITUATION HERE!

By a process of elimination, the premise can be established or negated. Re. Evoution. This does not work if this is an on-going process. Namely, an on-going process is not effected by time, which says we must see evolution occuring at all times. If one species changes to another, then we must be able to witness this every second - a billion years ago, and a billion years plus one second, and now. Of note, ToE depends on time as its proof. Secondly, evolution does not work without the 'seed' factor; namely an output of essence from the host parents, which acts as a chip with a directive program [dna; genes]. This was correctly given in Genesis, from where the premise of Darwin's Evolution was lifted. Genesis is the first recording of life form group listings, described by categories of terrain and habitat [water based; air based; land based; etc] - instead of skeletal and dna imprints; and that repro occurs via the seed factor, which is able to pass on the data and a directive program onto the offspring. Amazing science here. Thrdly, Evolution cannot be a science because it is not a universal phenomenon: it is nt seen elsewhere in the known universe. No life exists on the moon despite all earthly elements found there - including H & O [the componenets of H2O]. This destroys ToE's NATURAL SELECTION & SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST premises: why are these not seen in harsh conditions and only in ideal conditions here on earth!? Re. The BIG BANG. This is not possible in a finite universe, and the fact a singular, irreducible and indivisible entity cannot perform an action [a BANG] - because there was nothing else to interact with. There is good reason why most scientists avoid the pivotal finite factor of the universe! Genesis opens with the preamble the universe is finite - it had a 'BEGINNING'! This makes it encumbent on any scientist to first state their preamble which universe they are talking about - a finite or infinite one? Thereafter, everything they say MUST align with their preamble. It is unscientific to reject a statement based on that criteria. Most theologies subscribe to a flat earth [Gospels; Quran]. The Hebrew bible does not. This says a theology can be affirmed by science. A most interesting scientific question. I know no other valid explanation than that given in Genesis, namely that all life was initiated as a dual-gender, namely that the first male and female of all species and life forms were enjoined as one [dual gendered], then they seperated as male and female ['Man and woman created He them'/Genesis]. How else? I find the notion first a male appeared and then found an exact female counterpart ridiculous.

Fine, when new evidence turns up, then we can discuss it. But based on a finite universe - the premise stands: no alternatives. Admit this and yu are talkng science; deny it and you are not. There is no 'ONE [a singular, indivisible and irreducible entity] in the universe. For a ONE to exist, it means there is no need for a counterpart or an interaction; it does not depend on time or space for its existence; thus it is not subject to change. The only true definition of infinite is that which is not subject to 'change'. From the above premise, we can see that the universe could not have emerged from one singular entity [no action is possible without a couterpart interaction]. It is thus a scientific fact that there had to be a minimum of two entities to initiate the universe: ONE which was pre-existent and not subject to changes; and the other which appeared later. And this is only possible if the second entity came from the first entity. QED. GO AHEAD, BE NOT SHY! i'M LISTENING, SO QUIT HIDING BEHIND BLASPHEMY CHARADES. WHAT IS THE SCIENTIFIC ALTERNATE TO A UNIVERSE MAKER FOR A UNIVERSE ['CREATIONISM'] , BASED ON A FINITE UNIVERSE? ANYONE? Its not brave from the POV there are only two alternatives possible - ths makes it a legitimate scientific premise and the only counter on the table: 1. The universe is infinite, it always existed, it appeared by itself. OR 2. It is finite, once it never existed, thus it could not have appeared by itself because there were once no tools or elements to interact with. Science: it takes two to tango. Either the dancer needs another partner - or tango music playing by itelf. LOL!

We can say that one which describes an indefinable force is vindicated today from the basis of science, logic and what is manifest - namely the universe is finite [Genesis]: once it never existed and then it was there! This requires a universe maker. IOW, there is no alternatives to creationism from a purely scientific POV. What is that aternative? Of note only a finite universe is relevant here.

But it does. Space is a less rare density of matter. The difference is in degree not in kind:

Magestic engineering is seen throughout the universe, as with the human body. However, unlike our engineering values, the starting point [origins] is an enigma. Space is exactly the same matter as all other physical matter. This is the bottom line effect of Einstein's space bending premise. If space was 'nothingness' it could not bend! Space is a rarer form of matter, rarer than atmospheric matter, as in: solids; liquids; atmospheric matter [less rare; air]; non-atmospheric matter [still rarer - but never 'nothing']. Everything contained in the universe is basically the same matter - only their densities vary. The real beguiling question is: where does it end? I don't refer to the horizonal or vertical mediums of space, but what does this bendable space rest upon? Remember that once there was no space - because once there was no universe. The expanding universe says that the space is expanding; the question thus remains, where is the space expanding to - and upon what foundation? The finite factor negates the existence of anything contained in the universe - to exist outside or not within the universe. My answer: we cannot know the true 'origins' of anything. We do not know the origins of stars, life or pineapples.We get away from this enigma by wrongly accounting the universe as infinite [MV; Parallel Uni's]. But the expanding universe says it was not infinite 10 seconds ago. There is no singularity in the universe, nor can there ever be according to scientific understandings. Basically, aside from the mathematical and theoretical perspective, a singularity aligns with the premise of one indivisible and irreducible entity, namely a pristine 'one'. A pure, pristine 'one' cannot exist in the universe: if it did it could not produce an action, which requires a minimum of two interactives. A sole and lone pristine one would remain the same at all times, namely it can be seen as an infinite entity, one which requires no other counterpart to exist or cause an action. We know also, that if the universe is finite - it cannot contain an infinite.It takes two to tango applies.

Yes, its become a brave move in today's mindset. However, creationism refers primarilly to a cause factor, as in universe maker of a universe - its a scientific premise. If one sees only the theology cloak here, then one must equally give merit that such a premise, whether seen as correct or not, was indeed a new thought introduced by a theology, one that ushered in monotheism, and the premise of a finite universe and set the ball rolling to foster science itself. Why do we need science in an infinite universe - everything was alwats there, despite what science says? I agree in principle. The thing is we do not have an alternative to an indefinable and un-knowable source factor. Here, true creationism is not incorret, namely the source factor has to be a superior mind and power, else the notion of creating a universe becomes implausible. Until a sound alternative is at hand, there is no alternative to creationism.

Another view. Better than making this issue a right of one party, even though it takes two to tango, there is surely anothor far more impacting reason for this dire situation confronting humanity. The blame game only disregards the real issue. It cannot be selfishness when humans today have an issue with their own survival and life management, and no matter how one turns this as vanity and self centredness, the real issue is parents are not accorded correct facilities and respect for having children. The very pointing to issues such as population explosion proves the point. In fact, the more the population and the worse the climate pollution - the better for humanity. Howzat? Consider this: no matter what we do and whatever measures we take, we cannot survive on this planet in the near future. I speak like 1000 to 2000 years from now. Even if repro is restricted to one per lottery prize winner, our population will still overwhelm in the future; nor can we restrict the populations of trillions of other life forms. This factor is not negotiable and not a multi-choice question. Its a mathematical fact hovering over humanity with no options whatsoever. So what's the answer? Only one. Humanity has to go forth and multiply - and have dominion of other wrlds [all the worlds]. Here, there will be no such thing as jobless - all nations will have to contribute work to enable the task ahead: let's say the set goal is, an inhabitable dome city on the moon, and five bases on Mars - within the next 100 years. Here, reproduction will be highy respected and facilitated - so will a more adverse climate pollution. Its the only reason humanity will see the light and propel us to where lies humanity's survival answer. More population! Worse climate! Please!

Hi. There seems a problem with the question and the links provided. The probem is commonplace and seen also with scientists and scholars today: at one time the atoms never existed. IMHO, before discussing the universe and a universe maker, one has to decide which universe they are speaking about and from: a finite or an infinite one? Amazingly, the very question leans on a finite universe, being related to time, and that at one point the universe never existed. Scientific evidence also points this way, more so than the premise of 'we don't know for certain'. After all the universe is expanding, which says it was not infinite 10 seconds ago. Why does this issue impact most pivotally, to the extent it is incoherent to discuss the subject without it? Because a finite universe means an absolutely and non-negotiably finite one; as with an infinite universe also having that same status right. The former position negates any pre- or prallel universe premise, as this will violate the finite factor. A finite universe also thereby negates space, time, matter, energy, forces, MV, string, nature - and 'ATOMS'. Correct me if I'm wrong but on the above basis - namely based on an absolutely finite universe perspective, there is no alterative to an external, pre-existing force for the universe's emergence. IOW, there is no alternative to Creationism. The first recording of the universe being finite is in Genesis 1/1: there was a 'BEGINNING'. Not a bad guess - one that stands up to state of art science and physics today? I see the genesis verse a wholly scientific premise, being one of only two choices, and the fact it is from a theology does not in itself dis-qualify it. Correct me if I'm wrong from a scientific POV only - take me up?