A Universe from Nothing?

[`mud]

Ohhhhh...no.....it's mindlinks !!!!
shudders !
~
'mud

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Ohhhhh...no.....it's mindlinks !!!!
shudders !

As it happens we're all in the Matrix, unfortunately we're stuck in here forever because somebody decided to post in blue ink rather than red.

 

[Valjean]

Why can't a creator be a theory? You're just presenting a strawman saying it's not science. The idea of falsification is being challenged because it eliminates ideas such as the multiverse, something from nothing and other theories from being discussed. Even Karl Popper started to question it.

The "Creator" will become a theory as soon as there is tested evidence for Him/Her.

Biology has accumulated a lot of evidence in the century since Popper first formulated his ideas about falsifiability (sp?), which, by the way, negates religious authority. The ToE does not rest on Popper's 'mythology'.

GK Chesterton (who first proposed falsifiability), a creationist and author, said it best,
It's not just that, so the Bible is not poppycock, but evolution is. The mountain of evidence is a myth.

Chesterton was a century-old Roman Catholic apologist and champion of human exceptionalism. His critique of the limitations of science and inadequacy of evidence for humans as natural phenomena are thoroughly dated.

 

[james bond]

The "Creator" will become a theory as soon as there is tested evidence for Him/Her.

Biology has accumulated a lot of evidence in the century since Popper first formulated his ideas about falsifiability (sp?), which, by the way, negates religious authority. The ToE does not rest on Popper's 'mythology'.


Chesterton was a century-old Roman Catholic apologist and champion of human exceptionalism. His critique of the limitations of science and inadequacy of evidence for humans as natural phenomena are thoroughly dated.

Just your opinion. Nothing scientific about it. There is more science with a Creator such as Genesis which is testable.

 

[james bond]

Mindlinks? I didn't think of that one. More like computer links, but I guess one can have them implanted when they're small enough.

 

[Valjean]

Just your opinion. Nothing scientific about it. There is more science with a Creator such as Genesis which is testable.

Not 'just my opinion'. Evolution is a fact -- plants and animals have changed over time. There is overwhelming evidence of this.
The ToE describes the mechanisms by which this happens. They're generally simple, commonsense and observable.

Magic poofing, on the other hand has no empirical or logical underpinning whatever.

 

[james bond]

Not 'just my opinion'. Evolution is a fact -- plants and animals have changed over time. There is overwhelming evidence of this.
The ToE describes the mechanisms by which this happens. They're generally simple, commonsense and observable.

Magic poofing, on the other hand has no empirical or logical underpinning whatever.

Give it a rest. If evolution is a FACT, then everyone will be able to use it. What you're referring to is NATURAL SELECTION which a Christian scientist named Alfred Russel Wallace came up with, as well. It's part of creation science.

 

[gnostic]

If evolution is a FACT, then everyone will be able to use it. What you're referring to is NATURAL SELECTION which a Christian scientist named Alfred Russel Wallace came up with, as well. It's part of creation science.

For one, Natural Selection is a mechanism of evolutionary biology, as are Gene Flow, Genetic Drift and Mutation.

There is one theory to evolution, and each mechanism explain how it is possible.

Natural Selection is still a very relevant evolutionary mechanism, but have been modified and updated, as science advances, taking into account, like DNA and molecular biology. Natural Selection is not stuck with Darwin's original books and essays of the late 19th century.

Only ignorant people who don't understand science, would think that the theory of evolution, in particular Natural Selection, is static and unchanging. There have some errors in Darwin's works, but these have long been corrected.

And you are forgetting, Charles Darwin was also a Christian for most of his life. He may leans towards agnosticism in the last couple of decades of his life, but he has never renounced his Christian life. And you seemed to be forgetting that Wallace defended Darwin's publication of On the Origin of Species.

And for another. The absurdity is thinking that creationism is "science".

Creation involved in miracles and things that defied nature and natural mechanisms.

1. Creating a fully-growth adult living and breathing man from dust is impossible and improbable.
2. Creating a fully-grown adult woman from a man's rib in matter of moments, is also impossible.

These two are only possible in myths and in sci-fi or fantasy novels or movies. These are not scientific facts.

And a talking serpent only exist in stories, like myths, fables or children stories. Given what we know about the physiology of snakes and other reptiles, such a thing is not possible.

Science is science. There is no Creation Science.

 

[Valjean]

If evolution is a FACT, then everyone will be able to use it

What do you mean by this? I don't follow.

 

[james bond]

For one, Natural Selection is a mechanism of evolutionary biology, as are Gene Flow, Genetic Drift and Mutation.

There is one theory to evolution, and each mechanism explain how it is possible.

Natural Selection is still a very relevant evolutionary mechanism, but have been modified and updated, as science advances, taking into account, like DNA and molecular biology. Natural Selection is not stuck with Darwin's original books and essays of the late 19th century.

Only ignorant people who don't understand science, would think that the theory of evolution, in particular Natural Selection, is static and unchanging. There have some errors in Darwin's works, but these have long been corrected.

And you are forgetting, Charles Darwin was also a Christian for most of his life. He may leans towards agnosticism in the last couple of decades of his life, but he has never renounced his Christian life. And you seemed to be forgetting that Wallace defended Darwin's publication of On the Origin of Species.

And for another. The absurdity is thinking that creationism is "science".

Creation involved in miracles and things that defied nature and natural mechanisms.

1. Creating a fully-growth adult living and breathing man from dust is impossible and improbable.
2. Creating a fully-grown adult woman from a man's rib in matter of moments, is also impossible.

These two are only possible in myths and in sci-fi or fantasy novels or movies. These are not scientific facts.

And a talking serpent only exist in stories, like myths, fables or children stories. Given what we know about the physiology of snakes and other reptiles, such a thing is not possible.

Science is science. There is no Creation Science.

That's where you're wrong. Evos and atheists are usually wrong. Natural selection is part of creation science as explained by Alfred Russel Wallace. It explains the mechanism by which traits are selected and organisms adapt to their environment. This completely naturalistic mechanism observed in nature today is responsible for small adaptations, not radical genome mutation that evolution ultimately predicts has to happen. What is observed are small changes and that is all creationism has ever predicted to happen in organisms from natural selection. The creationist view is far more based off of scientific observations while evolutionists extrapolate from observed data to conclude things that fit their presumptions of naturalism and evolution.

ToE does not explain how it is possible. Again, the facts are molded to fit the theory and presumptions of evolution.

Why am I ignorant because I disagree with what you presume? Christians invented science, Sir Francis Bacon is the father of the scientific method and Christians understand science, so evos and atheists are wrong again when they state the religious are ignorant. They should look in the mirror. Creationists have looked at both sides and found creation more acceptable than ToE.

Darwin went against the Christian religion and it started with being influenced by an atheist name Charles Lyell. Lyell wanted to rebel against Christian teachings of science based on the Bible. Thus, evolution is founded upon atheism. It's not science, but more a religion like atheism. Both evolution and atheism is based on a belief that something is true even though it has not been proved. That is the definition of faith.

Again, you are wrong. The serpent did not talk, but Satan used the serpent as a mechanism by which to communicate. It's a fact that animals besides humans are incapable of speech. Just because you misunderstood does not make it a myth.

And you're wrong again in your final statement. Just read my third paragraph above this one.

It just goes to show evolutionists and atheists are usually wrong probably due to ignorance and faulty assumptions..

 

[james bond]

What do you mean by this? I don't follow.

One of the most misunderstood facts about evolution is that it is a theory and not fact. If something is a fact, such as death and taxes, then we all understand it and abide by it whether we like to or not. We know that we cannot overcome gravity, but we can jump and defy gravity for a limited period of time. Or use space ships to overcome the effects of gravity and go off into space. BTW Newton's law of gravity still holds even though he was wrong about how it works. We can all use it wherever we are in the universe. I think all of us accept distribution and change in allele frequencies as being under the influence of natural selection, genetic drift, mutation and gene flow. However, it does not mean that species evolved into some other creature above the species level. This would require a change of adding new information to the genome through mutation and it does not happen. Evolutionists presume or believe it happens. That is based strictly on faith. Other parts that creation scientists disagree with are the theories of common descent and randomness (that all adaptive design is the result of blind, random processes).

 

[Skwim]

.

That's where you're wrong. Evos and atheists are usually wrong.

Boy, you talk just like Donald Trump, and that ain't no compliment.

Natural selection is part of creation science as explained by Alfred Russel Wallace..

That's interesting in as much as Wallace died in 1913 and creation science didn't arise until the 1960s.


.

 

[psychoslice]

Is there such thing as nothing ?.

 

[james bond]

.
Boy, you talk just like Donald Trump, and that ain't no compliment.

That's interesting in as much as Wallace died in 1913 and creation science didn't arise until the 1960s.


.

Jeez Louise, you're wrong again. Look up Sir Francis Bacon and the scientific method. Before that was Rene Descartes. When did evolution start?

As for Wallace, it matters how he lived and died. He was related to Braveheart and outlived Darwin. He died probably of old age while Darwin ate feces and died ha ha. Actually I think he was bitten by a bug while out studying nature and it eventually got to him a couple of decades later..

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Is there such thing as nothing ?.

No...there is only a relative nothing.....as in I have no bananas...but no absolute nothing.. However there are some scientists and their followers who adhere to a big bang theory whereby they believe all that exists came from non-existence......from a state of no time...no space...absolute nothing...and then 13.7 billion years ago, for no known reason, this absolute nothing gave birth to time and space and energy and matter and here we are... Iow, they believe in a miracle...an impossible miracle at that...

 

[psychoslice]

No...there is only a relative nothing.....as in I have no bananas...but no absolute nothing.. However there are some scientists and their followers who adhere to a big bang theory whereby they believe all that exists came from non-existence......from a state of no time...no space...absolute nothing...and then 13.7 billion years ago it gave birth to time and space and energy and matter and here we are...

Yes, but the scientific theory does sound much better than the creationist highly unlikely belief.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, but the scientific theory does sound much better than the creationist highly unlikely belief.

So far as those from both sides who believe that the essence underlying the universe came into existence in time.....neither can reasonably address the critical and most important unknown is positing a beginning......from whence came all that exists? If the universe in fact did not have a beginning because nothing does not exist...they are both wrong and so it is hardly reasonable to say that one is a better belief than the other....who wants to believe in something not true?

 

[psychoslice]

So far as those from both sides who believe that the essence underlying the universe came into existence in time.....neither can reasonably address the critical and most important unknown is positing a beginning......from whence came all that exists? If the universe in fact did not have a beginning because nothing does not exist...they are both wrong and so it is hardly reasonable to say that one is a better belief than the other....who wants to believe in something not true?

We can never know where the universe came from, and to do so is just showing our arrogance, but if I was a gabbling man I would put all my money on the scientific theory, religion and its silly beliefs come no where near the scientific evidence,

 

[Ben Dhyan]

We can never know where the universe came from, and to do so is just showing our arrogance, but if I was a gabbling man I would put all my money on the scientific theory, religion and its silly beliefs come no where near the scientific evidence,

But we do know.....the universe never had a beginning...it is eternal, simple logic...only the true believers from both sides ignore it....there is no nothing from which it would have had to have come from..

It is also backed up by the facts that science admits that nothing can be added to the universe, nor can anything be removed....therefore it is simple logic that the essence, underlying the universal forms that do have beginnings and endings, is eternal...

 

[psychoslice]

But we do know.....the universe never had a beginning...it is eternal, simple logic...only the true believers from both sides ignore it....there is no nothing from which it would have had to have come from..

It is also backed up by the facts that science admits that nothing can be added to the universe, nor can anything be removed....therefore it is simple logic that the essence underlying the universal forms that do have beginnings and endings is eternal...

And how do you know that ?.