If God's Flood was only a regional flood...

[james bond]

In regards to Noah's Flood, the evidence is overwhelming that there was a global flood. Not local. What you believe was one hypothesis in the news.

We find that monoliths came up from the seafloor. We find fossils of sea creatures high above sea level around the world. We find rapid burial of plants and animals. There are rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas and transported long distances. Creation scientists have experiments to demonstrate what happened and it fits what we observe. Rapid or no erosion between strata. Much strata laid down in rapid succession so that rocks ended up folded and not broken.

The worldview of atheists and evolutionary thinkers is that the present is the key to the past or what I call the "religion" of uniformitarianism. To the contrary, the earth was much different from today than in the past and it was formed rapidly by catastrophism.

"Creation scientists" is an oxymoron. Got a link anyways? I could use a laugh.

Taz, I'm sorry to report that you are hellbound. It's my inner Jack Chick channeling me.

Jack Chick Cartoons on Mobile

"8 But God dremembered Noah and all the beasts and all the livestock that were with him in the ark. And eGod made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided. 2 fThe fountains of the deep and fthe windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained, 3 and the waters receded from the earth continually. At the end gof 150 days the waters had abated, 4 and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of hArarat. 5 And the waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen." Genesis 8:1-5

Anyway, here's evidence of the "fountains of the deep" and monoliths coming up from the seafloor. It explains why earth is 3/4 covered with water. Just rain won't do it.



Seafloor spread was found inadvertently by naval geologist Harry Hess and discussed in Bill Nye's vid on plate tectonics. However, Nye didn't know he was showing what creation scientists had been saying all along that mountains and the earth's water came from fountains of the deep and earthquake and volcanic activity, i.e. catastrophism.

There's is no scientific evidence for what you claim. No geologic evidence either. Plate tectonics don't explain a 40 day flood either. Creation science is an oxymoron, there's nothing scientific about it.

Then you've been believing in evolution so long that your brain has turned to mush. Holy guacamole! Google mid-Atlantic ridge and see how far it goes. It also cuts through land. It's not the only seafloor mountain range. Moreover, you cannot explain how the earth is covered by water. We know from creation science that we should look for planets that have water below their surface, such as Titan or Europa moons (one also wants plate tectonics), in order to colonize in case something catastrophic happens to our planet. No, not global warming ha ha.

I already stated that raining for 40 days and 40 nights won't do it. It was extra water that came from the heavens. Thus, the earth was hit from water below and water above. A flood causes the most deaths in terms of catastrophes.

You live in a dreamworld.

It's you, Taz, who keep denying the truth or else you would have a comeback. Instead, I've been one upping you all along. Just dominating you and slapping you silly. It just goes to show that creation science, which you denied, has observational science on their side. While evos can't explain all the water on earth. What other planet has that, magnetic field, plate tectonics and a surface caused rapidly by catastrophism? None. Look at all the people who have come to walk the ridge in Iceland. And we are finding that Bill Nye is being used like a skinny tool to demonstrate creation science (inadvertently). Remember he took part in the debate with Ken Ham and helped complete Ark Encounter? He also created other videos showing evolution, but inadvertently helped the creation side, e.g. ice cores. How does that weak local flood theory look now? You must feel silly and should run away from this thread.

 

[westwall]

So something existed before the BB? So not a vacuum?

Nothing existed. The best way of describing nothing is calling it a vacuum. Which is exactly how theoretical physicists and cosmologists describe it.

So they haven’t proven anything yet?

Sure they have. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If it is a periodic universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. The model by Steinhardt and Turok does not have this problem. They have cycles but the size of the cycle increases with time. So the next cycle is bigger than the first. So in this sense the total entropy of the universe still increases but the entropy you see in your limited region may not grow. This model does no contradict the inflation model because since each cycle is bigger than the previous cycle you still have expansion. And since you still have expansion, it still has to have a beginning because if you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. 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.

Doesn’t prove what was before. Yawn.

Sure it does. Nothing existed before it. You really are having a hard time accepting that space and time had a beginning, aren't you?

Why do you hate science so much?

Because taz is an anti science denier. He denies well known cosmological theories, and well supported archeological papers that show there was indeed a world wide flood. Not a flood that covered all the whole world, but it most certainly flooded the places where the people lived, the coastlines and the rivers etc. The places where the people live now.

 

[james bond]

The paradox that I find with that answer is, before space and time, what existed? You say a vacuum, but where did that vacuum come from?

Before there was a universe, there was nothing, but can you imagine nothing? It's hard to comprehend. If there was nothing, then how could there now be something. You cant create something out of absolute nothing.

You say there was a vacuum, if there was a vacuum, that means there had to be some sort of material or void to create that vacuum. Where did that material or void come from?

It's something that I have a hard time understanding because, I simply cannot imagine nothingness. My brain cannot imagine the absence of anything, because my brain comprehends that as empty space....but if there was empty space. Then there obviously was something there, and my question is, where did that something come from.

Lol, my philosophy, if you cant beat 'em, confuse 'em!

As I stated before, it seems like much more of a leap of faith to believe that all of this sprang from nothing, than to believe that all of this was created by God who has always been here. Yes, I know, the next response to that would be, "who created God", to which, I have no answer. There can only be two answers, one is that there has always been a void that just mysteriously has always existed, and from that void, an explosion happened, and from that explosion, life was created, or that God has always existed, and He created life and everything else.

Or a third answer: we simply don't know what was before the BB and are still searching.

Don't be silly, Taz. We know space and time were created ~14 billion years ago.

What existed before that was a vacuum; a curious void which contained potential.

Can you prove the vacuum? No, you can’t.

I can prove the beginning. Before that there was no space or time. There was nothing. Nothing equals a vacuum, Taz.

You’re claiming that you know what was before, you’re in dreamland.

Taz, you should know what existed before the BB. It was a point of infinite density, mass and temperature. And the Godhead or Trinity is considered a plural noun. Yet is is one.

 

[abu afak]

Because taz is an anti science denier. He denies well known cosmological theories, and well supported archeological papers that show there was indeed a world wide flood. Not a flood that covered all the whole world, but it most certainly flooded the places where the people lived, the coastlines and the rivers etc. The places where the people live now.

There was NO "worldwide flood" anytime in Millions++ of years, much less 6000 years.

In fact, if you melt all the poles and glaciers, it would only raise seal level about 250 feet.
ie, Jerusalem is at app 2500' altitude.
Much of the middle East/bible writers were above that level.
Not enough water for a worldwide flood
`

 

[westwall]

Because taz is an anti science denier. He denies well known cosmological theories, and well supported archeological papers that show there was indeed a world wide flood. Not a flood that covered all the whole world, but it most certainly flooded the places where the people lived, the coastlines and the rivers etc. The places where the people live now.

There was NO "worldwide flood" anytime in Millions++ of years, much less 6000 years.

In fact, if you melt all the poles and glaciers, it would only raise seal level about 250 feet.
ie, Jerusalem is at app 2500' altitude.
Much of the middle East/bible writers were above that level.
Not enough water for a worldwide flood
`

No, dumbass, the flood happened about 13,000 years ago, give or take. You see, dimwit, when the last Ice Age ended the sea levels rose by hundreds of meters. Guess where all of those people lived. Instead of demonstrating just how fucking ignorant you are, try reading a book sometime.

 

[abu afak]

No, dumbass, the flood happened about 13,000 years ago, give or take. You see, dimwit, when the last Ice Age ended the sea levels rose by hundreds of meters. Guess where all of those people lived. Instead of demonstrating just how fucking ignorant you are, try reading a book sometime.

Yes, and Sea Level has NOT gone back up/is about the SAME.. and we're still NOT Flooded you STOOOPID ******* MORON! That did NOT (and still doesn't) constitute a "worldwide flood."

Jerusalem, Was and is, still app 2500' above sea level.
Nothing but "Atlantis" is missing.
(and not to be confused with the local Black Sea Flood that probably spawned the Legend)

And the OP is specifically about "God's Flood" and Noah! You know, 40 days and 40 nights of rain that covered everything. NOT Seven Millenia at about a meter a Century.

You're a ****** IDIOT who claimed to be a scientist and Liberal Democrat.
You're a brain damaged liar.
`

 

[ding]

A vacuum is nothing, Taz.

And yes, the laws of nature had to exist for space and time to be created per the laws of nature.

You think the creation of space and time followed no laws?

So something existed before the BB? So not a vacuum?

Nothing existed. The best way of describing nothing is calling it a vacuum. Which is exactly how theoretical physicists and cosmologists describe it.

So they haven’t proven anything yet?

Sure they have. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If it is a periodic universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. The model by Steinhardt and Turok does not have this problem. They have cycles but the size of the cycle increases with time. So the next cycle is bigger than the first. So in this sense the total entropy of the universe still increases but the entropy you see in your limited region may not grow. This model does no contradict the inflation model because since each cycle is bigger than the previous cycle you still have expansion. And since you still have expansion, it still has to have a beginning because if you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. 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.

I guess I'm having a problem comprehending "nothing". Nothingness almost seems to be an impossibility. In my head, when I try to imagine nothing, my mind thinks of blackness, like the blackness of space, but that cant be it, because space cant exist in nothingness...nothing can.

You see, in my mind, if you follow the theory of evolution, then the big bang was the beginning of everything, the universe, space, matter, atoms, everything. The only thing I think couldn't have been created by the big bang is time...because time, even in nothingness, still ticks, at least that's how my mind thinks of it.

Now, you say there was energy and that energy is what caused the universe to appear, to me, that doesnt make sense, because in nothingness, energy cant exist, nothing can exist in nothingness. So, I go back to, where did that energy come from?

Big bang theorists say that the universe is expanding continually. For that to happen, that would mean it has to be expanding into nothingness. Also, for a universe to expand continually, that would have to mean that new matter is having to be created continually. Does this mean that, at the furthest reaches of the universe, that the big bang is happening continuously?

Wow, it's just boggling to think about all of this.

Space and time are a consequence of energy and matter. Without energy and matter (which BTW are equivalent) space and time do not exist. Time is said to be the measure of expansion.

 

[Taz]

A vacuum is nothing, Taz.

And yes, the laws of nature had to exist for space and time to be created per the laws of nature.

You think the creation of space and time followed no laws?

So something existed before the BB? So not a vacuum?

Nothing existed. The best way of describing nothing is calling it a vacuum. Which is exactly how theoretical physicists and cosmologists describe it.

So they haven’t proven anything yet?

Sure they have. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If it is a periodic universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. The model by Steinhardt and Turok does not have this problem. They have cycles but the size of the cycle increases with time. So the next cycle is bigger than the first. So in this sense the total entropy of the universe still increases but the entropy you see in your limited region may not grow. This model does no contradict the inflation model because since each cycle is bigger than the previous cycle you still have expansion. And since you still have expansion, it still has to have a beginning because if you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. 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.

I guess I'm having a problem comprehending "nothing". Nothingness almost seems to be an impossibility. In my head, when I try to imagine nothing, my mind thinks of blackness, like the blackness of space, but that cant be it, because space cant exist in nothingness...nothing can.

You see, in my mind, if you follow the theory of evolution, then the big bang was the beginning of everything, the universe, space, matter, atoms, everything. The only thing I think couldn't have been created by the big bang is time...because time, even in nothingness, still ticks, at least that's how my mind thinks of it.

Now, you say there was energy and that energy is what caused the universe to appear, to me, that doesnt make sense, because in nothingness, energy cant exist, nothing can exist in nothingness. So, I go back to, where did that energy come from?

Big bang theorists say that the universe is expanding continually. For that to happen, that would mean it has to be expanding into nothingness. Also, for a universe to expand continually, that would have to mean that new matter is having to be created continually. Does this mean that, at the furthest reaches of the universe, that the big bang is happening continuously?

Wow, it's just boggling to think about all of this.

Nobody knows what may have existed before the BB. Dingbat is just pulling your leg.

 

[Taz]

"Creation scientists" is an oxymoron. Got a link anyways? I could use a laugh.

Taz, I'm sorry to report that you are hellbound. It's my inner Jack Chick channeling me.

Jack Chick Cartoons on Mobile

"8 But God dremembered Noah and all the beasts and all the livestock that were with him in the ark. And eGod made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided. 2 fThe fountains of the deep and fthe windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained, 3 and the waters receded from the earth continually. At the end gof 150 days the waters had abated, 4 and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of hArarat. 5 And the waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen." Genesis 8:1-5

Anyway, here's evidence of the "fountains of the deep" and monoliths coming up from the seafloor. It explains why earth is 3/4 covered with water. Just rain won't do it.



Seafloor spread was found inadvertently by naval geologist Harry Hess and discussed in Bill Nye's vid on plate tectonics. However, Nye didn't know he was showing what creation scientists had been saying all along that mountains and the earth's water came from fountains of the deep and earthquake and volcanic activity, i.e. catastrophism.

There's is no scientific evidence for what you claim. No geologic evidence either. Plate tectonics don't explain a 40 day flood either. Creation science is an oxymoron, there's nothing scientific about it.

Then you've been believing in evolution so long that your brain has turned to mush. Holy guacamole! Google mid-Atlantic ridge and see how far it goes. It also cuts through land. It's not the only seafloor mountain range. Moreover, you cannot explain how the earth is covered by water. We know from creation science that we should look for planets that have water below their surface, such as Titan or Europa moons (one also wants plate tectonics), in order to colonize in case something catastrophic happens to our planet. No, not global warming ha ha.

I already stated that raining for 40 days and 40 nights won't do it. It was extra water that came from the heavens. Thus, the earth was hit from water below and water above. A flood causes the most deaths in terms of catastrophes.

You live in a dreamworld.

It's you, Taz, who keep denying the truth or else you would have a comeback. Instead, I've been one upping you all along. Just dominating you and slapping you silly. It just goes to show that creation science, which you denied, has observational science on their side. While evos can't explain all the water on earth. What other planet has that, magnetic field, plate tectonics and a surface caused rapidly by catastrophism? None. Look at all the people who have come to walk the ridge in Iceland. And we are finding that Bill Nye is being used like a skinny tool to demonstrate creation science (inadvertently). Remember he took part in the debate with Ken Ham and helped complete Ark Encounter? He also created other videos showing evolution, but inadvertently helped the creation side, e.g. ice cores. How does that weak local flood theory look now? You must feel silly and should run away from this thread.

You're not basing your opinions on real science, you're just making shit up, or following made up shit that someone else made up. Everything you say is a fantasy that you can't link up to a real science site. "Creation science" isn't a science, it's a fairy tale, and real scientist don't take it seriously.

 

[ding]

So something existed before the BB? So not a vacuum?

Nothing existed. The best way of describing nothing is calling it a vacuum. Which is exactly how theoretical physicists and cosmologists describe it.

So they haven’t proven anything yet?

Sure they have. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If it is a periodic universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. The model by Steinhardt and Turok does not have this problem. They have cycles but the size of the cycle increases with time. So the next cycle is bigger than the first. So in this sense the total entropy of the universe still increases but the entropy you see in your limited region may not grow. This model does no contradict the inflation model because since each cycle is bigger than the previous cycle you still have expansion. And since you still have expansion, it still has to have a beginning because if you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. 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.

I guess I'm having a problem comprehending "nothing". Nothingness almost seems to be an impossibility. In my head, when I try to imagine nothing, my mind thinks of blackness, like the blackness of space, but that cant be it, because space cant exist in nothingness...nothing can.

You see, in my mind, if you follow the theory of evolution, then the big bang was the beginning of everything, the universe, space, matter, atoms, everything. The only thing I think couldn't have been created by the big bang is time...because time, even in nothingness, still ticks, at least that's how my mind thinks of it.

Now, you say there was energy and that energy is what caused the universe to appear, to me, that doesnt make sense, because in nothingness, energy cant exist, nothing can exist in nothingness. So, I go back to, where did that energy come from?

Big bang theorists say that the universe is expanding continually. For that to happen, that would mean it has to be expanding into nothingness. Also, for a universe to expand continually, that would have to mean that new matter is having to be created continually. Does this mean that, at the furthest reaches of the universe, that the big bang is happening continuously?

Wow, it's just boggling to think about all of this.

Nobody knows what may have existed before the BB. Dingbat is just pulling your leg.

Nothing existed before space and time existed. Everyone but you knows this.

 

[Taz]

Nothing existed. The best way of describing nothing is calling it a vacuum. Which is exactly how theoretical physicists and cosmologists describe it.

So they haven’t proven anything yet?

Sure they have. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If it is a periodic universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. The model by Steinhardt and Turok does not have this problem. They have cycles but the size of the cycle increases with time. So the next cycle is bigger than the first. So in this sense the total entropy of the universe still increases but the entropy you see in your limited region may not grow. This model does no contradict the inflation model because since each cycle is bigger than the previous cycle you still have expansion. And since you still have expansion, it still has to have a beginning because if you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. 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.

Doesn’t prove what was before. Yawn.

Sure it does. Nothing existed before it. You really are having a hard time accepting that space and time had a beginning, aren't you?

Why do you hate science so much?

Because taz is an anti science denier. He denies well known cosmological theories, and well supported archeological papers that show there was indeed a world wide flood. Not a flood that covered all the whole world, but it most certainly flooded the places where the people lived, the coastlines and the rivers etc. The places where the people live now.

I never said that there wasn't a regional flood. It's actually geologically documented that the Black Sea bursts it's dam or whatever and flooded the region. So if it was a regional flood, why would god tell Noah to save all the animals, since a regional flood doesn't make animals go extinct? That's the OP. Get it now? Need more help? Want a pacifier?

 

[Taz]

Or a third answer: we simply don't know what was before the BB and are still searching.

Don't be silly, Taz. We know space and time were created ~14 billion years ago.

What existed before that was a vacuum; a curious void which contained potential.

Can you prove the vacuum? No, you can’t.

I can prove the beginning. Before that there was no space or time. There was nothing. Nothing equals a vacuum, Taz.

You’re claiming that you know what was before, you’re in dreamland.

Taz, you should know what existed before the BB. It was a point of infinite density, mass and temperature. And the Godhead or Trinity is considered a plural noun. Yet is is one.

So you can prove that what you claim was the only thing that existed before the BB? I think not.

 

[ding]

So they haven’t proven anything yet?

Sure they have. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If it is a periodic universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. The model by Steinhardt and Turok does not have this problem. They have cycles but the size of the cycle increases with time. So the next cycle is bigger than the first. So in this sense the total entropy of the universe still increases but the entropy you see in your limited region may not grow. This model does no contradict the inflation model because since each cycle is bigger than the previous cycle you still have expansion. And since you still have expansion, it still has to have a beginning because if you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. 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.

Doesn’t prove what was before. Yawn.

Sure it does. Nothing existed before it. You really are having a hard time accepting that space and time had a beginning, aren't you?

Why do you hate science so much?

Because taz is an anti science denier. He denies well known cosmological theories, and well supported archeological papers that show there was indeed a world wide flood. Not a flood that covered all the whole world, but it most certainly flooded the places where the people lived, the coastlines and the rivers etc. The places where the people live now.

I never said that there wasn't a regional flood. It's actually geologically documented that the Black Sea bursts it's dam or whatever and flooded the region. So if it was a regional flood, why would god tell Noah to save all the animals, since a regional flood doesn't make animals go extinct? That's the OP. Get it now? Need more help? Want a pacifier?

Are you seriously trying to figure out the details of an allegorical account of a real event?

 

[Taz]

Nothing existed. The best way of describing nothing is calling it a vacuum. Which is exactly how theoretical physicists and cosmologists describe it.

So they haven’t proven anything yet?

Sure they have. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If it is a periodic universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. The model by Steinhardt and Turok does not have this problem. They have cycles but the size of the cycle increases with time. So the next cycle is bigger than the first. So in this sense the total entropy of the universe still increases but the entropy you see in your limited region may not grow. This model does no contradict the inflation model because since each cycle is bigger than the previous cycle you still have expansion. And since you still have expansion, it still has to have a beginning because if you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. 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.

I guess I'm having a problem comprehending "nothing". Nothingness almost seems to be an impossibility. In my head, when I try to imagine nothing, my mind thinks of blackness, like the blackness of space, but that cant be it, because space cant exist in nothingness...nothing can.

You see, in my mind, if you follow the theory of evolution, then the big bang was the beginning of everything, the universe, space, matter, atoms, everything. The only thing I think couldn't have been created by the big bang is time...because time, even in nothingness, still ticks, at least that's how my mind thinks of it.

Now, you say there was energy and that energy is what caused the universe to appear, to me, that doesnt make sense, because in nothingness, energy cant exist, nothing can exist in nothingness. So, I go back to, where did that energy come from?

Big bang theorists say that the universe is expanding continually. For that to happen, that would mean it has to be expanding into nothingness. Also, for a universe to expand continually, that would have to mean that new matter is having to be created continually. Does this mean that, at the furthest reaches of the universe, that the big bang is happening continuously?

Wow, it's just boggling to think about all of this.

Nobody knows what may have existed before the BB. Dingbat is just pulling your leg.

Nothing existed before space and time existed. Everyone but you knows this.

Sane people know that they can't possibly know what might have been there before the BB. As an example, lot of real scientist theorize about multiple universes, and the math bears this out. Do you deny this possibility?

 

[Taz]

Sure they have. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If it is a periodic universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. The model by Steinhardt and Turok does not have this problem. They have cycles but the size of the cycle increases with time. So the next cycle is bigger than the first. So in this sense the total entropy of the universe still increases but the entropy you see in your limited region may not grow. This model does no contradict the inflation model because since each cycle is bigger than the previous cycle you still have expansion. And since you still have expansion, it still has to have a beginning because if you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. 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.

Doesn’t prove what was before. Yawn.

Sure it does. Nothing existed before it. You really are having a hard time accepting that space and time had a beginning, aren't you?

Why do you hate science so much?

Because taz is an anti science denier. He denies well known cosmological theories, and well supported archeological papers that show there was indeed a world wide flood. Not a flood that covered all the whole world, but it most certainly flooded the places where the people lived, the coastlines and the rivers etc. The places where the people live now.

I never said that there wasn't a regional flood. It's actually geologically documented that the Black Sea bursts it's dam or whatever and flooded the region. So if it was a regional flood, why would god tell Noah to save all the animals, since a regional flood doesn't make animals go extinct? That's the OP. Get it now? Need more help? Want a pacifier?

Are you seriously trying to figure out the details of an allegorical account of a real event?

I'm asking so if it was a regional flood, why would god tell Noah to save all the animals, since a regional flood doesn't make animals go extinct? That's what this thread is about.

 

[ding]

So they haven’t proven anything yet?

Sure they have. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If it is a periodic universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. The model by Steinhardt and Turok does not have this problem. They have cycles but the size of the cycle increases with time. So the next cycle is bigger than the first. So in this sense the total entropy of the universe still increases but the entropy you see in your limited region may not grow. This model does no contradict the inflation model because since each cycle is bigger than the previous cycle you still have expansion. And since you still have expansion, it still has to have a beginning because if you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. 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.

I guess I'm having a problem comprehending "nothing". Nothingness almost seems to be an impossibility. In my head, when I try to imagine nothing, my mind thinks of blackness, like the blackness of space, but that cant be it, because space cant exist in nothingness...nothing can.

You see, in my mind, if you follow the theory of evolution, then the big bang was the beginning of everything, the universe, space, matter, atoms, everything. The only thing I think couldn't have been created by the big bang is time...because time, even in nothingness, still ticks, at least that's how my mind thinks of it.

Now, you say there was energy and that energy is what caused the universe to appear, to me, that doesnt make sense, because in nothingness, energy cant exist, nothing can exist in nothingness. So, I go back to, where did that energy come from?

Big bang theorists say that the universe is expanding continually. For that to happen, that would mean it has to be expanding into nothingness. Also, for a universe to expand continually, that would have to mean that new matter is having to be created continually. Does this mean that, at the furthest reaches of the universe, that the big bang is happening continuously?

Wow, it's just boggling to think about all of this.

Nobody knows what may have existed before the BB. Dingbat is just pulling your leg.

Nothing existed before space and time existed. Everyone but you knows this.

Sane people know that they can't possibly know what might have been there before the BB. As an example, lot of real scientist theorize about multiple universes, and the math bears this out. Do you deny this possibility?

Sane people know that space and time had a beginning and that before that point nothing existed because there was no space and time for it to exist.

 

[ding]

Doesn’t prove what was before. Yawn.

Sure it does. Nothing existed before it. You really are having a hard time accepting that space and time had a beginning, aren't you?

Why do you hate science so much?

Because taz is an anti science denier. He denies well known cosmological theories, and well supported archeological papers that show there was indeed a world wide flood. Not a flood that covered all the whole world, but it most certainly flooded the places where the people lived, the coastlines and the rivers etc. The places where the people live now.

I never said that there wasn't a regional flood. It's actually geologically documented that the Black Sea bursts it's dam or whatever and flooded the region. So if it was a regional flood, why would god tell Noah to save all the animals, since a regional flood doesn't make animals go extinct? That's the OP. Get it now? Need more help? Want a pacifier?

Are you seriously trying to figure out the details of an allegorical account of a real event?

I'm asking so if it was a regional flood, why would god tell Noah to save all the animals, since a regional flood doesn't make animals go extinct? That's what this thread is about.

And I told you that you are reading an allegorical account of the flood literally. Do you not understand what that means?

 

[Taz]

Sure it does. Nothing existed before it. You really are having a hard time accepting that space and time had a beginning, aren't you?

Why do you hate science so much?

Because taz is an anti science denier. He denies well known cosmological theories, and well supported archeological papers that show there was indeed a world wide flood. Not a flood that covered all the whole world, but it most certainly flooded the places where the people lived, the coastlines and the rivers etc. The places where the people live now.

I never said that there wasn't a regional flood. It's actually geologically documented that the Black Sea bursts it's dam or whatever and flooded the region. So if it was a regional flood, why would god tell Noah to save all the animals, since a regional flood doesn't make animals go extinct? That's the OP. Get it now? Need more help? Want a pacifier?

Are you seriously trying to figure out the details of an allegorical account of a real event?

I'm asking so if it was a regional flood, why would god tell Noah to save all the animals, since a regional flood doesn't make animals go extinct? That's what this thread is about.

And I told you that you are reading an allegorical account of the flood literally. Do you not understand what that means?

So what does saving animals that won't go extinct mean? The writer is a dummy?

 

[Taz]

Sure they have. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If it is a periodic universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. The model by Steinhardt and Turok does not have this problem. They have cycles but the size of the cycle increases with time. So the next cycle is bigger than the first. So in this sense the total entropy of the universe still increases but the entropy you see in your limited region may not grow. This model does no contradict the inflation model because since each cycle is bigger than the previous cycle you still have expansion. And since you still have expansion, it still has to have a beginning because if you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. 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.

I guess I'm having a problem comprehending "nothing". Nothingness almost seems to be an impossibility. In my head, when I try to imagine nothing, my mind thinks of blackness, like the blackness of space, but that cant be it, because space cant exist in nothingness...nothing can.

You see, in my mind, if you follow the theory of evolution, then the big bang was the beginning of everything, the universe, space, matter, atoms, everything. The only thing I think couldn't have been created by the big bang is time...because time, even in nothingness, still ticks, at least that's how my mind thinks of it.

Now, you say there was energy and that energy is what caused the universe to appear, to me, that doesnt make sense, because in nothingness, energy cant exist, nothing can exist in nothingness. So, I go back to, where did that energy come from?

Big bang theorists say that the universe is expanding continually. For that to happen, that would mean it has to be expanding into nothingness. Also, for a universe to expand continually, that would have to mean that new matter is having to be created continually. Does this mean that, at the furthest reaches of the universe, that the big bang is happening continuously?

Wow, it's just boggling to think about all of this.

Nobody knows what may have existed before the BB. Dingbat is just pulling your leg.

Nothing existed before space and time existed. Everyone but you knows this.

Sane people know that they can't possibly know what might have been there before the BB. As an example, lot of real scientist theorize about multiple universes, and the math bears this out. Do you deny this possibility?

Sane people know that space and time had a beginning and that before that point nothing existed because there was no space and time for it to exist.

Real scientists theorize about different possibilities for what was before the BB and if there are multiple universes... which means they don't know. Maybe they should ask you, since you're the only one who knows?

 

[ding]

Because taz is an anti science denier. He denies well known cosmological theories, and well supported archeological papers that show there was indeed a world wide flood. Not a flood that covered all the whole world, but it most certainly flooded the places where the people lived, the coastlines and the rivers etc. The places where the people live now.

I never said that there wasn't a regional flood. It's actually geologically documented that the Black Sea bursts it's dam or whatever and flooded the region. So if it was a regional flood, why would god tell Noah to save all the animals, since a regional flood doesn't make animals go extinct? That's the OP. Get it now? Need more help? Want a pacifier?

Are you seriously trying to figure out the details of an allegorical account of a real event?

I'm asking so if it was a regional flood, why would god tell Noah to save all the animals, since a regional flood doesn't make animals go extinct? That's what this thread is about.

And I told you that you are reading an allegorical account of the flood literally. Do you not understand what that means?

So what does saving animals that won't go extinct mean? The writer is a dummy?

No. That it is a story to be passed down to future generations. Same as the Tower of Babel which describes the great migration from the cradle of civilization.