Contingency matters. If the universe arose from fluctuations of quantum “static”, how did the quantum static get there?
Space outside the observable uninverse is expanding faster than the speed of light. That’s why it’s not observable. How old do you think it is?
Which is how we can tell that eyes evolved. Eyes were not present initially but have evolved since the appearance of the first life. The evidence present in existing species shows that eyes evolved over time with different parts of the optical system evolving at different times.
It has always been there. It’s what metaphysicists call Prime Matter.
? Tautology. That which is not observable is, well, not observable.
What is Prime Matter? Matter cannot exist without space. Matter cannot transform without time. Transforming matter requires energy. Space, time, matter and energy are inexorably bound. One logically gets all 4 or none.
If you don’t like the concept of Prime Matter, don’t blame me, blame Aristotle, and Aquinas, et al. Prime Matter is formless matter, thus it’s simple, incorruptible, and eternal.
The strongest scientific statement is the evidence suggests that eyes could have evolved … Déjà vu all over again.
Although many posters wish to make this thread a faith vs. science argument, it is rather a challenge to science to show us the money. Using your own rule, show us the actual evidence, the actual observation that elevates your claim to science from mere fantasy.
For Aristotle and Aquinas, prime matter has no existence on its own. It has no actuality itself, it exists only by the existence of the composite:
According to Einstein’s theory of relativity, time is relative. Time is relative to variables like velocity. So, it depends.
Prime Matter and physical matter are different.
Prime matter is simple, incorruptible, and eternal because Almighty God is simple, incorruptible, and eternal. Nothing is impossible for Almighty God except perhaps to cease his own essence. Therefore, the potential to create (and un-create) has always been there with Almighty God. We call that potential: Prime matter. Prime matter is a philosophical term and metaphysical term but it does not of the same essence as physical matter.
Certainly:
It appears we have a citation to an act of faith. The Becker abstract begins, “The origin of life is believed …” Doesn’t pass the Rossum Rule.
Revealed truth appeals to revelation not physical evidence and is not encumbered by Rossum’s Rule. You, however, are.
It’s why they are unobservable that needed the explanation. And unlike your warp drive unicorns, that which is beyond the observable universe is not travelling faster than the speed of light.Freddy:
? Tautology. That which is not observable is, well, not observable.
I assumed that you would have given an answer relative to us. A rough idea would be fine. I like to know the level of acceptance of basic scientific principles people have when they discuss anything in this particular thread. It saves me a lot of time downstream.Freddy:
According to Einstein’s theory of relativity, time is relative.
Don’t stand on ceremony, MJ. Out with it!
I prefer not to be categorized, labelled, pigeon-holed, etc. as in YEC or non-YEC or otherwise. I’m open to long periods of development and traditional geologic aging periods but I’m also sympathetic to concepts like a literal Adam and Eve and a literal Noah. I think that the geologic layers show evidence in places of rapid sedimentary deposition. I’m influenced in favor of conventional evolutionary chronologies because Saint Pope John Paul II the Great seemed to affirm that view. I look for the ways that science and the Bible can be reconciled. I’m a bit suspicious of radiometic dating because I think it’s inaccurate and inconsistent and assumes a clean sample with zero isotopes at the beginning. I acknowledge that the geologic layers are stratified with distinctive “index fossils” in the various layers. But, yes, I’m unique and prefer not to be “pigeon-holed” with a label.
I wholeheartedly agree. And yet according to metaphysics, prime matter must exist, as you yourself quoted:
So there must exist something from which physical things come to exist, but which is itself, not physical.
The same can be said of Hawking’s quantum source…it exists only in combination with physical reality, because the very concept of existing before the existence of physical reality…and its accompanying time…is meaningless. Therefore it can only exist in conjunction with the very things of which it is the source.
Absolutely…no question. Hawking attributes the existence of physical reality to a fluctuation in the quantum equivalent of prime matter, not to a fluctuation in some pre-existing matter.
So we agree. The question then becomes, what need is there of God if a mere fluctuation in prime matter is all that’s required to create everything else?
F: ‘Do you accept basic scientific principles?’Freddy:
I prefer not to be categorized, labelled, pigeon-holed, etc. as in YEC or non-YEC or otherwise. I’m open to long periods of development and traditional geologic aging periods but I’m also sympathetic to concepts like a literal Adam and Eve and a literal Noah. I think that the geologic layers show evidence in places of rapid sedimentary deposition. I’m influenced in favor of conventional evolutionary chronologies because Saint Pope John Paul II the Great seemed to affirm that view. I look for the ways that science and the Bible can be reconciled. I’m a bit suspicious of radiometic dating because I think it’s inaccurate and inconsistent and assumes a clean sample with zero isotopes at the beginning. I acknowledge that the geologic layers are stratified with distinctive “index fossils” in the various layers. But, yes, I’m unique and prefer not to be “pigeon-holed” with a label.
How erm… convenient. Yes, that’s the word: convenient. You expect evidence from the science side, but you deny the necessity of evidence from your side. Definitely ‘convenient’ for you.