Creationists' theory in detail

[alang1216]

... I have no doubt you know more of the engineering than I do. What I doubt is your assertion the universe was created from nothing. It seem more of a leap to say something came from nothing than it does to say the something we see from something in a different form. The later we see all the time, the former we have never seen. Occam's Razor again.

You are wrong. Occam's razor says when something looks like nothing, smells like nothing and you are not able to touch it - so why not to say it is nothing? Why to postulate a "something"?

The universe currently exists. As far back as we can see it existed. To assume at some point it did not exist but come from nothing is something outside our experience. It is easier for me to believe what I have experienced that what I have never seen.

 

[ding]

When you say something like we don't know where it comes from implies that you believe it is a physical phenomenon or event. It isn't. The singularity is merely the point (in mathematics) when Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations yields infinite values.

So it literally has nothing to do with the FLoT and the SLoT.

Would you like to learn the role that the FLoT and the SLoT play in this discussion?

A black hole is a singularity but it is very real and has a real effect on the universe. The black hole had a beginning but it existed as normal matter before it became a black hole.

Yes, I would you like to learn the role that the FLoT and the SLoT you believe play in this discussion.

Yes, the black hole is a real stellar structure and yes, it has a gravitational effect on other objects in the universe. The singularity of a black hole is the point on the event horizon of the black hole where the mathematics (which are based upon Einstein's general theory of relativity) yield infinite values. It's the point where the equations break down so to speak. That's it. Yes, the black hole had a beginning so to speak when the star collapsed but all the matter contained in the black hole was created when the universe was created. In fact, all matter and energy in the universe was created when the universe was created ~14 billion years ago.

The SLoT tells us that the universe has not existed forever. There are several different ways to look at entropy. So it can be very confusing but the best way to look at entropy in the context of this discussion is that for every matter to energy or energy to matter conversion there will be a loss of usable energy (heat) to the system. This cannot be avoided and is the reason there will never be a perpetual motion machine. At least not without supplying energy from the outside, but I digress. The upstart of this is that as time approaches infinity all objects will equilibrate. This we do not see so we know the universe has not existed forever (i.e. infinite time). I should probably point out that just because usable energy was lost to the system that does not mean the FLoT was violated. It just means that matter/energy are no longer usable to do work.

Which then leads us to the problem of the FLoT. If matter and energy has not existed forever and matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, how did it get here and why isn't everything equilibrated? The answer to that is that it is possible for matter to have a beginning or be created but only under a certain situation. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

 

[alang1216]

No one is able to produce or to destroy energy.

Except God? Can anyone explain how?

 

[ding]

... I have no doubt you know more of the engineering than I do. What I doubt is your assertion the universe was created from nothing. It seem more of a leap to say something came from nothing than it does to say the something we see from something in a different form. The later we see all the time, the former we have never seen. Occam's Razor again.

You are wrong. Occam's razor says when something looks like nothing, smells like nothing and you are not able to touch it - so why not to say it is nothing? Why to postulate a "something"?

The universe currently exists. As far back as we can see it existed. To assume at some point it did not exist but come from nothing is something outside our experience. It is easier for me to believe what I have experienced that what I have never seen.

Unfortunately there is no other way to reconcile the FLoT and the SLoT without explaining that the universe was created from nothing because if you claim the universe has always existed then you will violate the SLoT. The only possible explanation is creating matter out of nothing and reconciling that the FLoT was not violated in the process which is exactly what I just explained to you in my last post. Which BTW came from the scientific community.

So if you are going to deny this, you might as well be James Bond.

 

[ding]

No one is able to produce or to destroy energy.

Except God? Can anyone explain how?

I just did. Now if you want me to go into further details I will.

But I am pretty convinced it will be wasted on you because you seem to be a religious nutjob with your unsupported and illogical denial of science. Funny how that worked out, isn't it?

 

[ding]

So you believe the universe has existed forever?

I don't know, I don't think there is any evidence for what came before the BB.

Exactly, which is why you can't know that God can be proven through reason and experience.

The evidence for what came before the BB is from the evidence that came after the BB. Specifically, red shift, CMB, SLoT, FLoT, quantum mechanics and Friedmann's solutions to Einsteins field equations.

So there's my evidence.

It appears that your position is to ignore the evidence.

 

[james bond]

That’s not a fact. Your cut and paste slogans about social Darwinism, eugenics, Hitler and the rise of Nazism leading to socialism and communism are stereotypical falsehoods you stole from fundie xtian websites.

It’s just remarkable how fundie xtians will use dishonesty and falsehoods to press their agenda.

It's historical fact. Survival of the fittest which isn't even science should be lumped in with social Darwinism, eugenics, Hitler and the rise of Nazism, and atheism leads to secular humanism, socialism, and communism.

Isn't this why you and the atheists come unglued when people point out the political power and evil of your leftist politics. Why else would people who do not believe in God or gods participate so heavily in the Religion and Ethics forum? You people do not have much morality nor ethics?

 

[Hollie]

That’s not a fact. Your cut and paste slogans about social Darwinism, eugenics, Hitler and the rise of Nazism leading to socialism and communism are stereotypical falsehoods you stole from fundie xtian websites.

It’s just remarkable how fundie xtians will use dishonesty and falsehoods to press their agenda.

It's historical fact. Survival of the fittest which isn't even science should be lumped in with social Darwinism, eugenics, Hitler and the rise of Nazism, and atheism leads to secular humanism, socialism, and communism.

Isn't this why you and the atheists come unglued when people point out the political power and evil of your leftist politics. Why else would people who do not believe in God or gods participate so heavily in the Religion and Ethics forum? You people do not have much morality nor ethics?

Your claimed “phacts” are not facts at all. You’re simply reiterating libels that are promoted by your fundie xtian ministries. I notice your usual lack of supporting evidence that accompanies your hysterical claims. While you can’t admit it, creationism is the true bigotry. It is founded on religious bigotry and supremacist.ideology, so the foundation of creationism, by most standards, is immoral.

The only one coming unglued is you. It’s comical that the religious extremists will use the “eugenics” slogan to smear science when eugenics was much more a product of racial bigotry than of anything properly describable as science. Let’s remember it was the good xtians who have a long, lurid history of oppression and human slaughter through the Dark Ages, conquest and promotion of slavery while claiming to act in the will of the gods.

I would tread elsewhere when trying to equate Hitlerian ideology and Nazi ideology. Hitler and Nazism were deeply rooted in christianity with a bit of favoritism to the occult. Did you know the SS wore the inscription "Gott mit uns" on their belt buckles? Do a search for the translation.

 

[james bond]

Your claimed “phacts” are not facts at all. You’re simply reiterating libels that are promoted by your fundie xtian ministries. I notice your usual lack of supporting evidence that accompanies your hysterical claims. While you can’t admit it, creationism is the true bigotry. It is founded on religious bigotry and supremacist.ideology, so the foundation of creationism, by most standards, is immoral.

The only one coming unglued is you. It’s comical that the religious extremists will use the “eugenics” slogan to smear science when eugenics was much more a product of racial bigotry than of anything properly describable as science. Let’s remember it was the good xtians who have a long, lurid history of oppression and human slaughter through the Dark Ages, conquest and promotion of slavery while claiming to act in the will of the gods.

I would tread elsewhere when trying to equate Hitlerian ideology and Nazi ideology. Hitler and Nazism were deeply rooted in christianity with a bit of favoritism to the occult. Did you know the SS wore the inscription "Gott mit uns" on their belt buckles? Do a search for the translation.

You know very well that the person who founded Eugenics was Darwin's cousin and Darwin even supported it. That's how racist Darwin and his family were. And it followed that Hitler wanted to kill Jews. That would make it difficult for Jesus to save them when he returns.

 

[Hollie]

Your claimed “phacts” are not facts at all. You’re simply reiterating libels that are promoted by your fundie xtian ministries. I notice your usual lack of supporting evidence that accompanies your hysterical claims. While you can’t admit it, creationism is the true bigotry. It is founded on religious bigotry and supremacist.ideology, so the foundation of creationism, by most standards, is immoral.

The only one coming unglued is you. It’s comical that the religious extremists will use the “eugenics” slogan to smear science when eugenics was much more a product of racial bigotry than of anything properly describable as science. Let’s remember it was the good xtians who have a long, lurid history of oppression and human slaughter through the Dark Ages, conquest and promotion of slavery while claiming to act in the will of the gods.

I would tread elsewhere when trying to equate Hitlerian ideology and Nazi ideology. Hitler and Nazism were deeply rooted in christianity with a bit of favoritism to the occult. Did you know the SS wore the inscription "Gott mit uns" on their belt buckles? Do a search for the translation.

You know very well that the person who founded Eugenics was Darwin's cousin and Darwin even supported it. That's how racist Darwin and his family were. And it followed that Hitler wanted to kill Jews. That would make it difficult for Jesus to save them when he returns.

You obviously don’t know that there was no “founding” of Eugenics. Another of the dishonest tactics of religious extremists is to assign “eugenics” to Darwin when Darwin’s theory of natural selection makes no case for it.

And it followed that Hitler wanted to kill Jews. That would make it difficult for Jesus to save them when he returns

That’s truly sick. Hitler, the good xtian, used hatred and vilification of the Jewish people along with Poles, Gypsies and others, to advance his policy of racial / ethnic superiority.

“Gott mit uns". God is with us.

 

[alang1216]

When you say something like we don't know where it comes from implies that you believe it is a physical phenomenon or event. It isn't. The singularity is merely the point (in mathematics) when Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations yields infinite values.

So it literally has nothing to do with the FLoT and the SLoT.

Would you like to learn the role that the FLoT and the SLoT play in this discussion?

A black hole is a singularity but it is very real and has a real effect on the universe. The black hole had a beginning but it existed as normal matter before it became a black hole.

Yes, I would you like to learn the role that the FLoT and the SLoT you believe play in this discussion.

Yes, the black hole is a real stellar structure and yes, it has a gravitational effect on other objects in the universe. The singularity of a black hole is the point on the event horizon of the black hole where the mathematics (which are based upon Einstein's general theory of relativity) yield infinite values. It's the point where the equations break down so to speak. That's it. Yes, the black hole had a beginning so to speak when the star collapsed but all the matter contained in the black hole was created when the universe was created. In fact, all matter and energy in the universe was created when the universe was created ~14 billion years ago.

The SLoT tells us that the universe has not existed forever. There are several different ways to look at entropy. So it can be very confusing but the best way to look at entropy in the context of this discussion is that for every matter to energy or energy to matter conversion there will be a loss of usable energy (heat) to the system. This cannot be avoided and is the reason there will never be a perpetual motion machine. At least not without supplying energy from the outside, but I digress. The upstart of this is that as time approaches infinity all objects will equilibrate. This we do not see so we know the universe has not existed forever (i.e. infinite time). I should probably point out that just because usable energy was lost to the system that does not mean the FLoT was violated. It just means that matter/energy are no longer usable to do work.

Which then leads us to the problem of the FLoT. If matter and energy has not existed forever and matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, how did it get here and why isn't everything equilibrated? The answer to that is that it is possible for matter to have a beginning or be created but only under a certain situation. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

OK. My head hurts and I don't know enough to dispute what you said. It sounds like through natural processes the universe could just pop into existence. You didn't even need to mention God.

 

[alang1216]

Actually what I am discussing here is the moral law.

Which was also built into the laws of nature which existed before space and time.

which you would be able to understand existed before space and time if you weren’t trying to confirm your bias by arguing against the generally accepted science that the universe was created from nothing according to the laws of nature.

I know less about moral law than I do about singularities and vacuum energy. If there are moral laws of the universe I have yet to see them.

 

[alang1216]

Unfortunately there is no other way to reconcile the FLoT and the SLoT without explaining that the universe was created from nothing because if you claim the universe has always existed then you will violate the SLoT. The only possible explanation is creating matter out of nothing and reconciling that the FLoT was not violated in the process which is exactly what I just explained to you in my last post. Which BTW came from the scientific community.

So if you are going to deny this, you might as well be James Bond.

OK the universe was created from nothing. I'm just no longer sure I know what 'nothing' means.

 

[Votto]

No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.

Proofs are for mathematicians. Evolution is a natural process, creation is a supernatural process. There are mechanisms proposed for evolution that conform to natural laws, no mechanisms are known for creationism beyond 'breathed life' or the like.

"Evolution is a natural process, creation is a supernatural process"

The quote above is a huge assumption.

Which part?

Random chance, for example.

That is an assumption. Who is to say that it is random or by chance for sure?

We witness the miracle of life being created inside a mother every day and don't think twice about it, is another example.

Or what of gravity? What is it? There are not "particles" to study, just an invisible force that we observe and glibly accept it. This force supposedly controls an invisible grid in space in which mass warps it creating gravity.

It's like magic!

 

[ding]

When you say something like we don't know where it comes from implies that you believe it is a physical phenomenon or event. It isn't. The singularity is merely the point (in mathematics) when Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations yields infinite values.

So it literally has nothing to do with the FLoT and the SLoT.

Would you like to learn the role that the FLoT and the SLoT play in this discussion?

A black hole is a singularity but it is very real and has a real effect on the universe. The black hole had a beginning but it existed as normal matter before it became a black hole.

Yes, I would you like to learn the role that the FLoT and the SLoT you believe play in this discussion.

Yes, the black hole is a real stellar structure and yes, it has a gravitational effect on other objects in the universe. The singularity of a black hole is the point on the event horizon of the black hole where the mathematics (which are based upon Einstein's general theory of relativity) yield infinite values. It's the point where the equations break down so to speak. That's it. Yes, the black hole had a beginning so to speak when the star collapsed but all the matter contained in the black hole was created when the universe was created. In fact, all matter and energy in the universe was created when the universe was created ~14 billion years ago.

The SLoT tells us that the universe has not existed forever. There are several different ways to look at entropy. So it can be very confusing but the best way to look at entropy in the context of this discussion is that for every matter to energy or energy to matter conversion there will be a loss of usable energy (heat) to the system. This cannot be avoided and is the reason there will never be a perpetual motion machine. At least not without supplying energy from the outside, but I digress. The upstart of this is that as time approaches infinity all objects will equilibrate. This we do not see so we know the universe has not existed forever (i.e. infinite time). I should probably point out that just because usable energy was lost to the system that does not mean the FLoT was violated. It just means that matter/energy are no longer usable to do work.

Which then leads us to the problem of the FLoT. If matter and energy has not existed forever and matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, how did it get here and why isn't everything equilibrated? The answer to that is that it is possible for matter to have a beginning or be created but only under a certain situation. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

OK. My head hurts and I don't know enough to dispute what you said. It sounds like through natural processes the universe could just pop into existence. You didn't even need to mention God.

Why do you need to dispute it?

Of course I never mentioned God. So what?

 

[ding]

Actually what I am discussing here is the moral law.

Which was also built into the laws of nature which existed before space and time.

which you would be able to understand existed before space and time if you weren’t trying to confirm your bias by arguing against the generally accepted science that the universe was created from nothing according to the laws of nature.

I know less about moral law than I do about singularities and vacuum energy. If there are moral laws of the universe I have yet to see them.

You have. You just never realized it before.

 

[ding]

Unfortunately there is no other way to reconcile the FLoT and the SLoT without explaining that the universe was created from nothing because if you claim the universe has always existed then you will violate the SLoT. The only possible explanation is creating matter out of nothing and reconciling that the FLoT was not violated in the process which is exactly what I just explained to you in my last post. Which BTW came from the scientific community.

So if you are going to deny this, you might as well be James Bond.

OK the universe was created from nothing. I'm just no longer sure I know what 'nothing' means.

That’s where it gets complicated.

 

[alang1216]

So you believe the universe has existed forever?

I don't know, I don't think there is any evidence for what came before the BB.

Exactly, which is why you can't know that God can be proven through reason and experience.

The evidence for what came before the BB is from the evidence that came after the BB. Specifically, red shift, CMB, SLoT, FLoT, quantum mechanics and Friedmann's solutions to Einsteins field equations.

So there's my evidence.

It appears that your position is to ignore the evidence.

So the laws of nature are your evidence for God? OK, fine by me, as I said I'm agnostic on this point. What I still fail to see is how this evidence for God tells us anything about God.

 

[alang1216]

No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.

Proofs are for mathematicians. Evolution is a natural process, creation is a supernatural process. There are mechanisms proposed for evolution that conform to natural laws, no mechanisms are known for creationism beyond 'breathed life' or the like.

"Evolution is a natural process, creation is a supernatural process"

The quote above is a huge assumption.

Which part?

Random chance, for example.

That is an assumption. Who is to say that it is random or by chance for sure?

We witness the miracle of life being created inside a mother every day and don't think twice about it, is another example.

Or what of gravity? What is it? There are not "particles" to study, just an invisible force that we observe and glibly accept it. This force supposedly controls an invisible grid in space in which mass warps it creating gravity.

It's like magic!

Sounds like a strawman to me. Who mentioned random chance? Evolution is not random if that is your issue.

 

[alang1216]

When you say something like we don't know where it comes from implies that you believe it is a physical phenomenon or event. It isn't. The singularity is merely the point (in mathematics) when Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations yields infinite values.

So it literally has nothing to do with the FLoT and the SLoT.

Would you like to learn the role that the FLoT and the SLoT play in this discussion?

A black hole is a singularity but it is very real and has a real effect on the universe. The black hole had a beginning but it existed as normal matter before it became a black hole.

Yes, I would you like to learn the role that the FLoT and the SLoT you believe play in this discussion.

Yes, the black hole is a real stellar structure and yes, it has a gravitational effect on other objects in the universe. The singularity of a black hole is the point on the event horizon of the black hole where the mathematics (which are based upon Einstein's general theory of relativity) yield infinite values. It's the point where the equations break down so to speak. That's it. Yes, the black hole had a beginning so to speak when the star collapsed but all the matter contained in the black hole was created when the universe was created. In fact, all matter and energy in the universe was created when the universe was created ~14 billion years ago.

The SLoT tells us that the universe has not existed forever. There are several different ways to look at entropy. So it can be very confusing but the best way to look at entropy in the context of this discussion is that for every matter to energy or energy to matter conversion there will be a loss of usable energy (heat) to the system. This cannot be avoided and is the reason there will never be a perpetual motion machine. At least not without supplying energy from the outside, but I digress. The upstart of this is that as time approaches infinity all objects will equilibrate. This we do not see so we know the universe has not existed forever (i.e. infinite time). I should probably point out that just because usable energy was lost to the system that does not mean the FLoT was violated. It just means that matter/energy are no longer usable to do work.

Which then leads us to the problem of the FLoT. If matter and energy has not existed forever and matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, how did it get here and why isn't everything equilibrated? The answer to that is that it is possible for matter to have a beginning or be created but only under a certain situation. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

OK. My head hurts and I don't know enough to dispute what you said. It sounds like through natural processes the universe could just pop into existence. You didn't even need to mention God.

Why do you need to dispute it?

Of course I never mentioned God. So what?

I thought your goal was to prove God exists. You appear to have shown he played no role in creation.