Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Youwerecreated]

So YWC has just admitted that matter has always existed and will always exist. You should quit while you are only this far behind.

Listen, I did no such thing. You will not find any intelligent scientist saying what existed and what things were like before the Big Bang because they don't know. That would no longer be science either.

You must not understand the 2nd law if matter and energy existed before the Big Bang that would present problems because of the 2nd law. Did you not read Hawkings article ?

I can't help but note the absurdity of someone like you lecturing anyone on science.

You still don't get it what I have been saying ever since we started exchanging thoughts.

You have received your quota of my responses to you for the day.

Have a good day.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yes, he admits that locally things can get more ordered.

He admits his argument is wrong, but is too stupid to realize it.

No ,he admits things can get more ordered and complex because of coded genetic information because it forces it's will on matter,and that is is a temporary state. You see the friggen evidence all around you

Be careful slinging that term stupid around so recklessly.

No ,he admits things can get more ordered and complex

Yes, so his claim that they cannot is wrong........the opposite of right.

Like I said, stupid.

Take a class in Microbiology and Molecular biology then maybe you will see how foolish you're being.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Listen, I did no such thing. You will not find any intelligent scientist saying what existed and what things were like before the Big Bang because they don't know. That would no longer be science either.

You must not understand the 2nd law if matter and energy existed before the Big Bang that would present problems because of the 2nd law. Did you not read Hawkings article ?

The singularity consisted of matter and and energy and is entirely consistent with the 2nd law. You are pretending that your "creator" created matter but that would violate the 2nd law. Hawkings is correct that we do not know what form matter and energy took prior to the Big Bang but he is not saying that matter did not exist prior to the Big Bang. There are no intelligent scientists who are agreeing with your delusion that matter was "created".

Once again your creationist agenda obstructs your comprehension of reality.

There is no evidence showing matter existed before time,zero none. You simply don't know don't act like you do.

Of course there is. What did the singularity consist of prior to the Big Bang? Fairy dust? Your "creators" dandruff? Matter exists! That is an irrefutable fact. The singularity consisted of matter and energy prior to the Big Bang. The onus is on YOU to prove that the singularity did not contain any energy/matter prior to the Big Bang.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No ,he admits things can get more ordered and complex because of coded genetic information because it forces it's will on matter,and that is is a temporary state. You see the friggen evidence all around you

Be careful slinging that term stupid around so recklessly.

No ,he admits things can get more ordered and complex

Yes, so his claim that they cannot is wrong........the opposite of right.

Like I said, stupid.

Take a class in Microbiology and Molecular biology then maybe you will see how foolish you're being.

He disproves his own claim. Hilarious!

Me: Things can get more ordered, more complex.

Creationist: No they can't, that would violate the Second Law.

Me: A tree is more ordered and complex than an acorn.

Creationist: Why are you saying there is an exception to the 2nd Law?

Me: That's not an exception.

Creationist: Take a class in Microbiology and Molecular biology

Me: LOL!

 

[Youwerecreated]

No ,he admits things can get more ordered and complex

Yes, so his claim that they cannot is wrong........the opposite of right.

Like I said, stupid.

Take a class in Microbiology and Molecular biology then maybe you will see how foolish you're being.

He disproves his own claim. Hilarious
Me: Things can get more ordered, more complex.

Creationist: No they can't, that would violate the Second Law.

Me: A tree is more ordered and complex than an acorn.

Creationist: Why are you saying there is an exception to the 2nd Law?

Me: That's not an exception.

Creationist: Take a class in Microbiology and Molecular biology

Me: LOL!

You might want to add genetics to that list. Listen it is basically this simple would just energy produce the order and complexity that you keep harping about or would those organisms need gene and the genetic information for the energy to do work ?

 

[Hollie]

No scam artist if you look at his background. Why would people holding doctorate degrees in science bother debating him if he is what you claim ?

I would say since you can't attack his argument and resort to pointless character assassination, he is not what you claim, and has reduced you to hollie and daws's level.

I am sure he took physics in high school, and at the college level. To get in to medical school you can't be an average student.

Wieland is a medical doctor graduating from Adelaide University in South Australia, but stopped practising medicine in 1986.[1] This was due to an accident Wieland was in with "a fully laden fuel tanker at highway speeds."[2] He endured five and a half months in hospital and has undergone more than fifty operations, as discussed in his book, Walking Through Shadows. He is a past president of the Christian Medical Fellowship of South Australia.[citation needed]

Wieland has said that during his time at university he was an atheist. In 1976 Wieland formed the Creation Science Association (CSA), a South Australian creationist organisation modelled after the Creation Research Society. In 1978 this organisation began publishing a magazine, Ex Nihilo (later called Creation Ex Nihilo), "to explain and promote special creation as a valid scientific explanation of origins." In 1980, CSA merged with a Queensland group to form the Creation Science Foundation, which subsequently became Answers in Genesis

Carl Wieland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't think any of you in this forum could do well in a debate against him.

As we see with regularity, the liars and phonies at AIG are best confronted simply by presenting them with facts.

If we look at his (Wieland's) background, we see another fundamentalist crank.

Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics

Response to Wieland: Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics

Dear Carl Wieland,
I have just come across your article on the Web entitled 'Junk-making' viruses neutralize an evolutionary argument, in which you claim that the evolutionary argument based on shared pseudogenes is invalid. As you may be aware, I have written an extensive article (posted at the Talk.Origins Archive) in which I outline in detail why retroposons/pseudogenes shared between species argue strongly for common ancestry and therefore support evolution. I am writing to you now to explain why I believe the conclusions of your article to be erroneous.

…

Because my Web article already links to sites with opposing points of view (and includes my responses to those sites) I plan to ask the Webmaster of Talk.Origins to include a link to your site, and a link to a copy of this response to it. I would appreciate any comments you might have to this response, and am sure that Talk.Origins would be willing to include a link to your comments. If you have any interest in providing the readers of your site with an opposing point of view so that they can make up their own minds based on a comprehensive review of the data, you might want to consider linking to my site.

Sincerely,

Edward E. Max


[Note added later:
Shortly after receiving this letter, Carl Wieland responded cordially, agreeing that his page on Answers in Genesis might have been misleading. He stated that he would remove his page, and it promptly disappeared from the Answers in Genesis site. ]

Thank you for bringing up Dr. Max ,now you can see his argument get shredded by Dr. Lee Spetner.

That shows integrity on Dr. wieland's part. Just like hawking did in that article I posted.

Now watch this destruction of Dr. Max's argument.

Spetner:

Now Ed, that’s ridiculous! Those two statements are not symmetrical. I don’t have to assume the series did not occur to make a case for the inadequacy of NDT. You, who are basing your theory of evolution on the occurrence of such a series, are required to show that it exists, or at least that it is likely to exist. You are obliged to show an existence. I am not obliged to prove a non-existence.
[LMS: IN MAX’S POSTING HE MOVED THIS REMARK OF MINE TO A LATER POINT IN THE DIALOGUE. I ORIGINALLY HAD IT HERE, AND HERE IS WHERE IT BELONGS.]

Dr. Max misleading.

Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

What a shame your best offering is Spetner, another discredited fundamentalist hack.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Take a class in Microbiology and Molecular biology then maybe you will see how foolish you're being.

He disproves his own claim. Hilarious
Me: Things can get more ordered, more complex.

Creationist: No they can't, that would violate the Second Law.

Me: A tree is more ordered and complex than an acorn.

Creationist: Why are you saying there is an exception to the 2nd Law?

Me: That's not an exception.

Creationist: Take a class in Microbiology and Molecular biology

Me: LOL!

You might want to add genetics to that list. Listen it is basically this simple would just energy produce the order and complexity that you keep harping about or would those organisms need gene and the genetic information for the energy to do work ?

Now you're claiming that genetics proves that the 2nd Law means things can't get more complex, more ordered?

would just energy produce the order and complexity that you keep harping about

Harping? It's the clowns who claim complexity cannot increase.
I keep showing that it can, with no violation of the 2nd Law. Try this:
A pile of coal and a pile of iron ore are turned into a skyscraper.

Is that a violation of the 2nd Law? Why or why not?

 

[Steven_R]

The singularity consisted of matter and and energy and is entirely consistent with the 2nd law. You are pretending that your "creator" created matter but that would violate the 2nd law. Hawkings is correct that we do not know what form matter and energy took prior to the Big Bang but he is not saying that matter did not exist prior to the Big Bang. There are no intelligent scientists who are agreeing with your delusion that matter was "created".

Once again your creationist agenda obstructs your comprehension of reality.

There is no evidence showing matter existed before time,zero none. You simply don't know don't act like you do.

Of course there is. What did the singularity consist of prior to the Big Bang? Fairy dust? Your "creators" dandruff? Matter exists! That is an irrefutable fact. The singularity consisted of matter and energy prior to the Big Bang. The onus is on YOU to prove that the singularity did not contain any energy/matter prior to the Big Bang.

Strictly speaking, you're kind of both right. When the inflationary epoch ends at 10^-33s the inflation field begins to decay into elementary particles, namely the quark-gluon. It isn't until 10^-6s to 1s after TBB that the universe is cool enough for protons and neutrons to form and it takes a few thousand years of cooling before the first protons and electrons get together to for the atoms that we all know and love today.

There's no matter as we know it at TBB, but there's also the precursor of matter as we know it at TBB because the things that will make up matter are already present.

 

[itfitzme]

There is no evidence showing matter existed before time,zero none. You simply don't know don't act like you do.

Of course there is. What did the singularity consist of prior to the Big Bang? Fairy dust? Your "creators" dandruff? Matter exists! That is an irrefutable fact. The singularity consisted of matter and energy prior to the Big Bang. The onus is on YOU to prove that the singularity did not contain any energy/matter prior to the Big Bang.

Strictly speaking, you're kind of both right. When the inflationary epoch ends at 10^-33s the inflation field begins to decay into elementary particles, namely the quark-gluon. It isn't until 10^-6s to 1s after TBB that the universe is cool enough for protons and neutrons to form and it takes a few thousand years of cooling before the first protons and electrons get together to for the atoms that we all know and love today.

There's no matter as we know it at TBB, but there's also the precursor of matter as we know it at TBB because the things that will make up matter are already present.

Classical thermodynamics and mechanical statistics are based on some very strict definitions of the systems, not the least of which is to treat mass and energy seperately. This is clear in that the general classifications of systems, isolated, closed, and open, are defined as constant mass and energy, constant mass, and variable mass and energy, respectively.

It would seem that, when we get to the level of the universe near the simgularity point, this distinction begins to faulter.

The relationship is given by Einstein's equation of;

When relativity must be accounted for, while total energy is conserved, mass is not. Mass is simply another form of energy. This could not be more clear as exemplified by an atomic explosion in which, to the best of my understanding, litterally converts mass into energy. Mass is not conserved beyond the level of classical assumptions.

Frankly, I'm not even sure what to do with the fact at the cosmological level, space itself is no longer a constant. As far as I can make of it, the expansion of the universe is not simply a "stretching" but literally the creation of new, never before existent space. And, as time itself is litterally another measure of distance, a measure of space, the reciprocal of length, time, as we know it is no longer some fixed quality of reality.

Trying to go from classical thermodynamics to the big bang, based on fuzzy philosophical connections just doesn't make sense.

What I cam be sure of is that any description that does not count the physical qualities is meaningless.

 

[Steven_R]

Of course there is. What did the singularity consist of prior to the Big Bang? Fairy dust? Your "creators" dandruff? Matter exists! That is an irrefutable fact. The singularity consisted of matter and energy prior to the Big Bang. The onus is on YOU to prove that the singularity did not contain any energy/matter prior to the Big Bang.

Strictly speaking, you're kind of both right. When the inflationary epoch ends at 10^-33s the inflation field begins to decay into elementary particles, namely the quark-gluon. It isn't until 10^-6s to 1s after TBB that the universe is cool enough for protons and neutrons to form and it takes a few thousand years of cooling before the first protons and electrons get together to for the atoms that we all know and love today.

There's no matter as we know it at TBB, but there's also the precursor of matter as we know it at TBB because the things that will make up matter are already present.

Classical thermodynamics and mechanical statistics are based on some very strict definitions of the systems, not the least of which is to treat mass and energy seperately. This is clear in that the general classifications of systems, isolated, closed, and open, are defined as constant mass and energy, constant mass, and variable mass and energy, respectively.

It would seem that, when we get to the level of the universe near the simgularity point, this distinction begins to faulter.

The relationship is given by Einstein's equation of;

When relativity must be accounted for, while total energy is conserved, mass is not. Mass is simply another form of energy. This could not be more clear as exemplified by an atomic explosion in which, to the best of my understanding, litterally converts mass into energy. Mass is not conserved beyond the level of classical assumptions.

Frankly, I'm not even sure what to do with the fact at the cosmological level, space itself is no longer a constant. As far as I can make of it, the expansion of the universe is not simply a "stretching" but literally the creation of new, never before existent space. And, as time itself is litterally another measure of distance, a measure of space, the reciprocal of length, time, as we know it is no longer some fixed quality of reality.

Trying to go from classical thermodynamics to the big bang, based on fuzzy philosophical connections just doesn't make sense.

What I cam be sure of is that any description that does not count the physical qualities is meaningless.

I don't get how a modern philosophical interpretation of a Bronze Age creation myth is supposed to have any weight at all when discussing cosmology, physics, biology, or any number of other areas, but there you go.

Even so, it is very difficult to wrap one's brains around some of these concepts. I have difficulty getting my brother to understand that the "Theory of Everything" he sees on TV isn't really a single idea that accounts for everything, but rather a tool to combines the classical world and the quantum world, both of which exist and both of which are in direct opposition to each other. All that theory really would be is a bridge between the two world so that they both make sense.

As difficult as these concepts are, with the math they are dense and almost unintelligible barring years of studies. Without the math they become almost meaningless ideas with no way to really grasp them.

 

[Hollie]

Listen, I did no such thing. You will not find any intelligent scientist saying what existed and what things were like before the Big Bang because they don't know. That would no longer be science either.

You must not understand the 2nd law if matter and energy existed before the Big Bang that would present problems because of the 2nd law. Did you not read Hawkings article ?

I can't help but note the absurdity of someone like you lecturing anyone on science.

You still don't get it what I have been saying ever since we started exchanging thoughts.

You have received your quota of my responses to you for the day.

Have a good day.

In the real world, it is you who has not been able to form a coherent or consistent argument.

Let’s be honest. You’re consumed whole by people not believing in your gawds. You’re incensed by it. That’s exactly why you spend so much time proselytizing. It’s also why you’re completely oblivious to, and utterly hostile to the facts of science. It’s why you repeatedly have cut and pasted falsified, parsed and edited “quotes” even in the face of those falsifications being repeatedly exposed as hoaxes.

I'll have a great day. Jeebus loves me, yes he does.

 

[Youwerecreated]

He disproves his own claim. Hilarious
Me: Things can get more ordered, more complex.

Creationist: No they can't, that would violate the Second Law.

Me: A tree is more ordered and complex than an acorn.

Creationist: Why are you saying there is an exception to the 2nd Law?

Me: That's not an exception.

Creationist: Take a class in Microbiology and Molecular biology

Me: LOL!

You might want to add genetics to that list. Listen it is basically this simple would just energy produce the order and complexity that you keep harping about or would those organisms need gene and the genetic information for the energy to do work ?

Now you're claiming that genetics proves that the 2nd Law means things can't get more complex, more ordered?

would just energy produce the order and complexity that you keep harping about

Harping? It's the clowns who claim complexity cannot increase.
I keep showing that it can, with no violation of the 2nd Law. Try this:
A pile of coal and a pile of iron ore are turned into a skyscraper.

Is that a violation of the 2nd Law? Why or why not?

That skyscraper would need a blueprint and planning. why do you avoid the obvious ? For evolution and for organisms to get more complex as they supposedly did through evolution they needed the same thing plus new beneficial genetic information.

The life cycle is ran through a cycle of needs. Would an organism that lacked the coding be considered disorder and randomness ?and would that organism exist if not for that coding,energy and all the other elements needed ?

What does that skyscraper look like over many years ? The important issue you're leaving out is what I have been pointing out. The skyscraper when completed is at the maximum order. That sounds like creation to me. Things once they were created were at maximum order and through the 2nd law they gained disorder and they break down.

Until you recognize my point and Dr. Wieland's point you won't fully understand creation makes more sense according to the evidence.

Things getting more complex are doing so because of the blueprints and the genetic information. Nothing get's more complex through random processes that would violate the 2nd law. Only through order do things get more complex.

I think I have said it enough even daws and hollie can understand it now.

 

[Youwerecreated]

As we see with regularity, the liars and phonies at AIG are best confronted simply by presenting them with facts.

If we look at his (Wieland's) background, we see another fundamentalist crank.

Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics

Response to Wieland: Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics

Thank you for bringing up Dr. Max ,now you can see his argument get shredded by Dr. Lee Spetner.

That shows integrity on Dr. wieland's part. Just like hawking did in that article I posted.

Now watch this destruction of Dr. Max's argument.

Spetner:

Now Ed, that’s ridiculous! Those two statements are not symmetrical. I don’t have to assume the series did not occur to make a case for the inadequacy of NDT. You, who are basing your theory of evolution on the occurrence of such a series, are required to show that it exists, or at least that it is likely to exist. You are obliged to show an existence. I am not obliged to prove a non-existence.
[LMS: IN MAX’S POSTING HE MOVED THIS REMARK OF MINE TO A LATER POINT IN THE DIALOGUE. I ORIGINALLY HAD IT HERE, AND HERE IS WHERE IT BELONGS.]

Dr. Max misleading.

Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

What a shame your best offering is Spetner, another discredited fundamentalist hack.

In your dreams.

 

[Hollie]

Strictly speaking, you're kind of both right. When the inflationary epoch ends at 10^-33s the inflation field begins to decay into elementary particles, namely the quark-gluon. It isn't until 10^-6s to 1s after TBB that the universe is cool enough for protons and neutrons to form and it takes a few thousand years of cooling before the first protons and electrons get together to for the atoms that we all know and love today.

There's no matter as we know it at TBB, but there's also the precursor of matter as we know it at TBB because the things that will make up matter are already present.

Classical thermodynamics and mechanical statistics are based on some very strict definitions of the systems, not the least of which is to treat mass and energy seperately. This is clear in that the general classifications of systems, isolated, closed, and open, are defined as constant mass and energy, constant mass, and variable mass and energy, respectively.

It would seem that, when we get to the level of the universe near the simgularity point, this distinction begins to faulter.

The relationship is given by Einstein's equation of;

When relativity must be accounted for, while total energy is conserved, mass is not. Mass is simply another form of energy. This could not be more clear as exemplified by an atomic explosion in which, to the best of my understanding, litterally converts mass into energy. Mass is not conserved beyond the level of classical assumptions.

Frankly, I'm not even sure what to do with the fact at the cosmological level, space itself is no longer a constant. As far as I can make of it, the expansion of the universe is not simply a "stretching" but literally the creation of new, never before existent space. And, as time itself is litterally another measure of distance, a measure of space, the reciprocal of length, time, as we know it is no longer some fixed quality of reality.

Trying to go from classical thermodynamics to the big bang, based on fuzzy philosophical connections just doesn't make sense.

What I cam be sure of is that any description that does not count the physical qualities is meaningless.

I don't get how a modern philosophical interpretation of a Bronze Age creation myth is supposed to have any weight at all when discussing cosmology, physics, biology, or any number of other areas, but there you go.

Even so, it is very difficult to wrap one's brains around some of these concepts. I have difficulty getting my brother to understand that the "Theory of Everything" he sees on TV isn't really a single idea that accounts for everything, but rather a tool to combines the classical world and the quantum world, both of which exist and both of which are in direct opposition to each other. All that theory really would be is a bridge between the two world so that they both make sense.

As difficult as these concepts are, with the math they are dense and almost unintelligible barring years of studies. Without the math they become almost meaningless ideas with no way to really grasp them.

A little help, here.

As I understand it, classical laws of physics...such as Conservation of Energy only came into “being” after Planck time... 10exp-43 seconds after the big bang. Before that time, due to the immense density of the universe, we have no idea what "laws" prevailed. We only know that they begat the laws of physics as we know them today. So, a somewhat discredited theory of an oscillating universe (a “big crunch” compressing matter followed by TBB), is a minor possibility

Conclusion: Conservation of Energy did not play a part in the creation of the universe...it was a by-product.

On a side note, when I listen to how fundies such as ywc describe their gods, I am always taken by two things: How really weak they make their gods while trying to make them omnipotent, and how indistinguishable those gods are from both humans and human conventions of demons.

The gods would have had to purposely create a very old looking, very spread out universe to see what we clearly see today. One wonders how is doing that -at the same time offering the creation story as inerrant - is any different from the gods perpetrating and perpetuating a lie?

 

[Hollie]

Thank you for bringing up Dr. Max ,now you can see his argument get shredded by Dr. Lee Spetner.

That shows integrity on Dr. wieland's part. Just like hawking did in that article I posted.

Now watch this destruction of Dr. Max's argument.

Spetner:

Now Ed, that’s ridiculous! Those two statements are not symmetrical. I don’t have to assume the series did not occur to make a case for the inadequacy of NDT. You, who are basing your theory of evolution on the occurrence of such a series, are required to show that it exists, or at least that it is likely to exist. You are obliged to show an existence. I am not obliged to prove a non-existence.
[LMS: IN MAX’S POSTING HE MOVED THIS REMARK OF MINE TO A LATER POINT IN THE DIALOGUE. I ORIGINALLY HAD IT HERE, AND HERE IS WHERE IT BELONGS.]

Dr. Max misleading.

Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

What a shame your best offering is Spetner, another discredited fundamentalist hack.

In your dreams.

Nope. In reality. Something your challenged by.

The Evolution of Improved Fitness

The Evolution of Improved Fitness: Correspondence with Lee Spetner


Spetner winds up stuttering and mumbling when he's befuddled just as you do.

 

[Hollie]

You might want to add genetics to that list. Listen it is basically this simple would just energy produce the order and complexity that you keep harping about or would those organisms need gene and the genetic information for the energy to do work ?

Now you're claiming that genetics proves that the 2nd Law means things can't get more complex, more ordered?

would just energy produce the order and complexity that you keep harping about

Harping? It's the clowns who claim complexity cannot increase.
I keep showing that it can, with no violation of the 2nd Law. Try this:
A pile of coal and a pile of iron ore are turned into a skyscraper.

Is that a violation of the 2nd Law? Why or why not?

That skyscraper would need a blueprint and planning. why do you avoid the obvious ? For evolution and for organisms to get more complex as they supposedly did through evolution they needed the same thing plus new beneficial genetic information.

The life cycle is ran through a cycle of needs. Would an organism that lacked the coding be considered disorder and randomness ?and would that organism exist if not for that coding,energy and all the other elements needed ?

What does that skyscraper look like over many years ? The important issue you're leaving out is what I have been pointing out. The skyscraper when completed is at the maximum order. That sounds like creation to me. Things once they were created were at maximum order and through the 2nd law they gained disorder and they break down.

Until you recognize my point and Dr. Wieland's point you won't fully understand creation makes more sense according to the evidence.

Things getting more complex are doing so because of the blueprints and the genetic information. Nothing get's more complex through random processes that would violate the 2nd law. Only through order do things get more complex.

I think I have said it enough even daws and hollie can understand it now.

Even by your standards of absurdity, that comment sinks to new levels of silliness.

Have you not been able to understand that mechanical devices and biological organisms are... you know... different?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Classical thermodynamics and mechanical statistics are based on some very strict definitions of the systems, not the least of which is to treat mass and energy seperately. This is clear in that the general classifications of systems, isolated, closed, and open, are defined as constant mass and energy, constant mass, and variable mass and energy, respectively.

It would seem that, when we get to the level of the universe near the simgularity point, this distinction begins to faulter.

The relationship is given by Einstein's equation of;

When relativity must be accounted for, while total energy is conserved, mass is not. Mass is simply another form of energy. This could not be more clear as exemplified by an atomic explosion in which, to the best of my understanding, litterally converts mass into energy. Mass is not conserved beyond the level of classical assumptions.

Frankly, I'm not even sure what to do with the fact at the cosmological level, space itself is no longer a constant. As far as I can make of it, the expansion of the universe is not simply a "stretching" but literally the creation of new, never before existent space. And, as time itself is litterally another measure of distance, a measure of space, the reciprocal of length, time, as we know it is no longer some fixed quality of reality.

Trying to go from classical thermodynamics to the big bang, based on fuzzy philosophical connections just doesn't make sense.

What I cam be sure of is that any description that does not count the physical qualities is meaningless.

I don't get how a modern philosophical interpretation of a Bronze Age creation myth is supposed to have any weight at all when discussing cosmology, physics, biology, or any number of other areas, but there you go.

Even so, it is very difficult to wrap one's brains around some of these concepts. I have difficulty getting my brother to understand that the "Theory of Everything" he sees on TV isn't really a single idea that accounts for everything, but rather a tool to combines the classical world and the quantum world, both of which exist and both of which are in direct opposition to each other. All that theory really would be is a bridge between the two world so that they both make sense.

As difficult as these concepts are, with the math they are dense and almost unintelligible barring years of studies. Without the math they become almost meaningless ideas with no way to really grasp them.

A little help, here.

As I understand it, classical laws of physics...such as Conservation of Energy only came into “being” after Planck time... 10exp-43 seconds after the big bang. Before that time, due to the immense density of the universe, we have no idea what "laws" prevailed. We only know that they begat the laws of physics as we know them today. So, a somewhat discredited theory of an oscillating universe (a “big crunch” compressing matter followed by TBB), is a minor possibility

Conclusion: Conservation of Energy did not play a part in the creation of the universe...it was a by-product.

On a side note, when I listen to how fundies such as ywc describe their gods, I am always taken by two things: How really weak they make their gods while trying to make them omnipotent, and how indistinguishable those gods are from both humans and human conventions of demons.

The gods would have had to purposely create a very old looking, very spread out universe to see what we clearly see today. One wonders how is doing that -at the same time offering the creation story as inerrant - is any different from the gods perpetrating and perpetuating a lie?

Which source did you plagiarize this time ?

 

[Hollie]

I don't get how a modern philosophical interpretation of a Bronze Age creation myth is supposed to have any weight at all when discussing cosmology, physics, biology, or any number of other areas, but there you go.

Even so, it is very difficult to wrap one's brains around some of these concepts. I have difficulty getting my brother to understand that the "Theory of Everything" he sees on TV isn't really a single idea that accounts for everything, but rather a tool to combines the classical world and the quantum world, both of which exist and both of which are in direct opposition to each other. All that theory really would be is a bridge between the two world so that they both make sense.

As difficult as these concepts are, with the math they are dense and almost unintelligible barring years of studies. Without the math they become almost meaningless ideas with no way to really grasp them.

A little help, here.

As I understand it, classical laws of physics...such as Conservation of Energy only came into “being” after Planck time... 10exp-43 seconds after the big bang. Before that time, due to the immense density of the universe, we have no idea what "laws" prevailed. We only know that they begat the laws of physics as we know them today. So, a somewhat discredited theory of an oscillating universe (a “big crunch” compressing matter followed by TBB), is a minor possibility

Conclusion: Conservation of Energy did not play a part in the creation of the universe...it was a by-product.

On a side note, when I listen to how fundies such as ywc describe their gods, I am always taken by two things: How really weak they make their gods while trying to make them omnipotent, and how indistinguishable those gods are from both humans and human conventions of demons.

The gods would have had to purposely create a very old looking, very spread out universe to see what we clearly see today. One wonders how is doing that -at the same time offering the creation story as inerrant - is any different from the gods perpetrating and perpetuating a lie?

Which source did you plagiarize this time ?

Impress us with some more phony "quotes" from your creation ministries. I'll be pleased to expose more of your lies.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Now you're claiming that genetics proves that the 2nd Law means things can't get more complex, more ordered?

would just energy produce the order and complexity that you keep harping about

Harping? It's the clowns who claim complexity cannot increase.
I keep showing that it can, with no violation of the 2nd Law. Try this:
A pile of coal and a pile of iron ore are turned into a skyscraper.

Is that a violation of the 2nd Law? Why or why not?

That skyscraper would need a blueprint and planning. why do you avoid the obvious ? For evolution and for organisms to get more complex as they supposedly did through evolution they needed the same thing plus new beneficial genetic information.

The life cycle is ran through a cycle of needs. Would an organism that lacked the coding be considered disorder and randomness ?and would that organism exist if not for that coding,energy and all the other elements needed ?

What does that skyscraper look like over many years ? The important issue you're leaving out is what I have been pointing out. The skyscraper when completed is at the maximum order. That sounds like creation to me. Things once they were created were at maximum order and through the 2nd law they gained disorder and they break down.

Until you recognize my point and Dr. Wieland's point you won't fully understand creation makes more sense according to the evidence.

Things getting more complex are doing so because of the blueprints and the genetic information. Nothing get's more complex through random processes that would violate the 2nd law. Only through order do things get more complex.

I think I have said it enough even daws and hollie can understand it now.

Even by your standards of absurdity, that comment sinks to new levels of silliness.

Have you not been able to understand that mechanical devices and biological organisms are... you know... different?

Typical stupidity on your part.

Whether animate or inanimate complex things are built and designed through instruction.

 

[Youwerecreated]

A little help, here.

As I understand it, classical laws of physics...such as Conservation of Energy only came into “being” after Planck time... 10exp-43 seconds after the big bang. Before that time, due to the immense density of the universe, we have no idea what "laws" prevailed. We only know that they begat the laws of physics as we know them today. So, a somewhat discredited theory of an oscillating universe (a “big crunch” compressing matter followed by TBB), is a minor possibility

Conclusion: Conservation of Energy did not play a part in the creation of the universe...it was a by-product.

On a side note, when I listen to how fundies such as ywc describe their gods, I am always taken by two things: How really weak they make their gods while trying to make them omnipotent, and how indistinguishable those gods are from both humans and human conventions of demons.

The gods would have had to purposely create a very old looking, very spread out universe to see what we clearly see today. One wonders how is doing that -at the same time offering the creation story as inerrant - is any different from the gods perpetrating and perpetuating a lie?

Which source did you plagiarize this time ?

Impress us with some more phony "quotes" from your creation ministries. I'll be pleased to expose more of your lies.

Do you ever grow weary of me kicking your butt.