Everything began with a colossal explosion.
Source: Scientists made it the fuck up.
>>16975760yes, we know, we've all seen Big Bang Theory
>>16975760fun fact: big bang hypothesis was made by creationist
>>16975760"Everything" is a semantic convenience, not a physical possibility.
>>16975760Kind of like when I shit?
>>16975815He wasn't a "creationist." He was a Catholic priest who believed non-retarded Catholic things.
>>16975884Catholics are creationists and their canonical beliefs are retarded, though.
>>16975852>"Everything" is a semantic convenience, not a physical possibility.
>>16975901>Catholics are creationistsIncorrect.
>>16975903Then how many physical things are in "everything"?
>>16975907All of them.
>>16975906Believing in a creator god is literally the opening sentence of both of their main creeds, apostle's and nicene.https://www.vatican.va/content/catechism/en/part_one/section_two.html
>>16975906nigga what?
>>16975909"How many" is a question requesting a quantitative response, not another vague ethereal qualifier that is just a synonym for the other vague ethereal qualifier you are trying to justify. The fact you will never possibly be able to demonstrably quantify "everything" proves the exact point you are trying to invalidate.
>>16975918>you don't know how many apples are on earth so it can't possibly be all of the applesYou're such a silly.
>>16975920You can't even decide for sure which fruits count as apples as a consequence of incompleteness, no matter the definition of apple you decide on, there are going to be some apple species that you will never be able to justify categorizing as apples or not.
>>16975921That is not what Godel's theorem says you silly. This particular "problem" is fully solved by monophyly.
>>16975914>>16975916You're kinda stretching the definition of "creationism." Doncha think?
>>16975923>monophylyNo because at some point in the ancestry, the species will not fit any definition of apple just like the human's common ancestors you will reach point they can't be categorized as a mammal or eventually even an animal, then ultimately even a living thing at all.
>>16975924No, someone who believes in a creator god is the exact definition of a creationist and there creed definitely insists on a belief in a creator god..
>>16975926>at some point in the ancestry, the species will not fit any definition of appleAnd those are not apples. Once we define a population of primordial apples, though, we can rigorously say that all of its descendants are, indeed, apples.
>>16975928Sure. It's not an argument worth having.You're applying a definition that is not used in common parlance. "Creationism" typically implies a rejection of evolution.
>>16975929No you can't, just like you can't say that everything that descended from the first bacterium, like humans, are themselves bacterium.
>>16975930Evolution doesn't replace creationism, abiogenesis is the creation substitution.
>>16975931Without nitpicking on your misunderstanding of the evolutionary pathway there, the class of distinction you're attempting to show is paraphyly, not monophyly. What we can say is that all descendants of the first eukaryotes are, themselves, eukaryotes. A similar example would be fish. "Fish" is paraphyletic. We descend from fish but are not fish. However, we are osteichthyes which includes the first bony fish and all of its descendants.
>>16975937IE, your example doesn't even actually apply to applies.
>>16975943Apples are monophyletic. Try again.
>>16975945No, apples aren't even an organism.
>>16975948"Apple" can describe both the fruit and the plant, you silly billy.
>>16975953And it also describes tomato fruits and tomato trees since apple trees and tomato plants share a common ancestor, which means apple describes all fruits since all fruit bearing trees share a common ancestor? Or is it the other way around are all apples actually tomatoes or some other fruit?
>>16975961The divergence between apples and tomatoes occurred before apples or tomatoes existed. You're being very silly today, anon.
>>16975907>Then how many physical things are in "everything"?I dunno. The exact number has no bearing on how much of a brainlet you are.
>>16975877The original name was Big Fart TheoryIt was changed because the vatican wasn't happy with that
>>16975852Reality began in a colossal explosion.
>>16975760A singularity means that it doesn't fit the current models of the universe, it doesn't mean that there's nothing there.
>>16976185What does this imply?
