Creationists, please provide evidence

[Herman Tripleton]

Problem with your whole...I dunno...thing.
Energy = Matter.
I dunno about supreme, but there are quite a few theories out there that stipulate that the universe is infinite. Why do you feel the need to invoke an extra step?
If the "creator" has always existed, why couldn't the universe (in some shape or form) have always existed?

You're forgetting that matter and energy are equivalent. Therefore, if energy is conserved, matter is also. In fact, you don't even need matter conservation, because it is covered in energy conservation.

Your equation is false. While all matter is energy, not all energy is matter.

The universe has not always existed. Science has demonstrated that the universe is 14 billion years old. Not infinite, not eternal.

After all that, this is all I get? :sad4:

Everything you wrote is in agreement with what I have been saying. You just supplied a different list of things that require a creator to occur, that's all. We are not debating how the universe operates we are debating how the universe began, so far there has been no suggestion of any way in which the universe was caused to exist that does not require another thing to initiate its manifestation.

You say that there are many theories. But i'm not too sure if this is what YOU believe. Do you believe that the creator is eternal, with no creator, no beginning and no end?-Q

No, I do not believe the creator is eternal.
Yes, I believe the creator had no creator.
Yes, I believe the creator to have no beginning and no end.
No I do not believe the creator to exist, other than imminently, within the universe.
No, I do not believe there is any thing outside the universe.
No, I do not believe that any thing within the universe, including the universe itself is substantial.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Your equation is false. While all matter is energy, not all energy is matter.

My equation is correct according to Einstein which states that E=MC2, in other words, via the exchange key of the square of the speed of light, Matter does, indeed, equal Energy, and consequently, Energy equals Matter, even to the point where energy influences mass.
To put it bluntly, a warm cup of tea weighs more than a cold cup of tea.

The universe has not always existed. Science has demonstrated that the universe is 14 billion years old. Not infinite, not eternal.

The time that has passed since the event somewhat falsely coined The Big Bang is 14 billion years, but in what state, if any, that the universe had before that is for the time being unknowable, as is the stretch of time, if there was such a thing, it existed.

In short, you are wrong, or at least highly inaccurate on both accounts.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

My equation is correct according to Einstein which states that E=MC2, in other words, via the exchange key of the square of the speed of light, Matter does, indeed, equal Energy, and consequently, Energy equals Matter, even to the point where energy influences mass.
To put it bluntly, a warm cup of tea weighs more than a cold cup of tea.

E=m(c^2). You meant that, right?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Everything you wrote is in agreement with what I have been saying. You just supplied a different list of things that require a creator to occur, that's all. We are not debating how the universe operates we are debating how the universe began, so far there has been no suggestion of any way in which the universe was caused to exist that does not require another thing to initiate its manifestation.

You didn't get the part about quantum fluctuations being able to cause a zero energy universe. It's where the multi-verse theory comes from. All you need is an electron in two different places at the same time and presto, new universe. So it is not unreasonable to assume that our universe was created the same way. One subatomic particle being in a certain place at a certain time, and presto. Zero energy, universe created.

 

[Autodidact]

It's just a shame evolutionary computation is about probabilities and not real science.

Science is all about probability. No probability--no science.

 

[PolyHedral]

You didn't get the part about quantum fluctuations being able to cause a zero energy universe. It's where the multi-verse theory comes from. All you need is an electron in two different places at the same time and presto, new universe. So it is not unreasonable to assume that our universe was created the same way. One subatomic particle being in a certain place at a certain time, and presto. Zero energy, universe created.

No.

The (incredibly questionable) many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics applies only once you actually have some matter. It does not explain where the matter/energy came from. Neither does the uncertainty principle, as it does not allow mass/energy to be generated from the vacuum for any noticeable amount of time.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

No.

The (incredibly questionable) many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics applies only once you actually have some matter. It does not explain where the matter/energy came from. Neither does the uncertainty principle, as it does not allow mass/energy to be generated from the vacuum for any noticeable amount of time.

I know that. If someone wants to say that God created all the energy that our universe is made up of, then fine. I'm just saying that once that energy is there, you can create a universe without the need for a creator. Its possible...not proven, but possible.

 

[outhouse]

creationist cannot agree with themselves on exactly when the god myth steps in, they never will. You cant prove a myth.

and creationist, please learn the difference between abiogenesis and evolution, you do make yourselves look more stupid

 

[jarofthoughts]

E=m(c^2). You meant that, right?

I meant:

E = Mass x Speed of Light x Speed of Light

 

[Gunfingers]

They need to implement jsmath on these fora. It's a pain in the butt to write out any formula more complicated than multiplication on here.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

I meant:

E = Mass x Speed of Light x Speed of Light

We're good then.

 

[jarofthoughts]

We're good then.

Far be it from me to get the most famous equation in the world wrong.

 

[Autodidact]

It is strange to me that you cannot understand that all things are created.

Disagreement is not the same as lack of understanding. Saying something doesn't make it so.

Which as I am sure you have found in your research is undisputed.

I dispute it.

Nobody denies that a child is created by its parents, that an apple is created by a tree, that gravity is created by the mass of an object.

This is a bizarre and hyper-stretched meaning of the word "creation."

Without this as a basis of fact no science could even begin to operate.

Why not? We don't have to know where the first atom came from, to study atoms.

What science clearly demonstrates is that every thing is created by some thing else.

So you keep saying.

That there is a scientific explanation for how all things came to be.

First, this is a very different thing than saying that all things are created. Second, there may be potential explanations for many things that we don't have actual explanations for yet.

A small rock is often formed by the motion of the tide rolling a larger rock. The motion of the tide is often created by the moon's gravity pulling the waters here and there. The gravity of the moon is created by the mass of the moon. The current mass of the moon was created after having smashed into the earth and reformed in orbit and taking a multitude of asteroid, meteor, and comet strikes. (I always forget which combination of those applies to what hits the moon)

Well it would certainly be odd to say that the tide created the rock.

Why is it so difficult to accept the premise that all things are created?

Because (1) it hasn't been shown (2) you're using an extremely expansive definition of the word "created."

And how do you not see with your own eyes that every thing you have ever known was created by some other thing.

Because we simply don't know that. Perhaps it is the word created that you have a personal hang up with.

Created is just the best way to describe how things come into existence but if you prefer another word, its fine with me. Here are a bunch of synonyms for created, maybe you would like to use one of them instead:

actualize, author, beget, bring into being, bring into existence, bring to pass, build, cause to be, coin, compose, conceive, concoct, constitute, construct, contrive, design, devise, discover, dream up, effect, erect, establish, fabricate, fashion, father, forge, form, formulate, found, generate, give birth to, give life to, hatch, imagine, initiate, institute, invent, invest, make, occasion, organize, originate, parent, perform, plan, procreate, produce, rear, set up, shape, sire, spawn, start

It would be very odd to say that the tide planned the rock, or the that the moon is author of the tides, would it not? "Created" is not a very good word to use to describe that. Maybe you want something about "causation," which is at least more precise than "creation."

Once you have picked one that you like can we move on past the basic idea that "every thing was <insert your favorite synonyms>"?

O.K., I guess what I think you're driving at is the idea that everything has a cause. However, although I'm not very good at understanding it, they tell me that quantum mechanics says that even this is not true, and that there are apparently uncaused events. That may be counter-intuitive, but then most of science is.

 

[Autodidact]

You want to argue about how two types of the same thing are different. I am sorry but I do not need any clarity on that topic. Now, If you want to argue about how two types of the same thing are the same, that could be interesting.

O.K., go ahead. Discuss whatever you like.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you either post whatever this alleged subject is, somewhere that we can discuss it, I don't care where, or move on to something more productive?

This thread is not about whether God exists or created the universe. In fact, it's premised on the assumption that He did. This thread is for people who believe that God magically poofed some aspect of the universe, specifically, living creatures, into existence, to present their evidence for that hypothesis.

By the way you have presented your opinions I suppose I could see how you would perceive it that way.

Yes, when I present many quotes from actual Buddhists that contradict your assertion, I perceive that I have disproved your assertion. You don't?

You are going to have to be more specific that that. Ancestor worship does not negate a creation myth and all creation myths have a creator, Even the Ryukyu.

You didn't say creation-myths. You said religions.

Creator is not the same creator-god, nor god. We cannot apply our own definitions to these terms. We have to work with the definitions found in the various scriptures themselves.

Now that I understand that you take the word creator to mean any cause, then I agree that most religions assert some sort of cause for things, even Buddhism. However, that is not what is commonly understood by the word "Creator," which is usually thought of a a sentient being.

 

[Autodidact]

Being an atheist does not mean that one has to deny a creator. A true atheist, as far as I am concerned, is merely one who refuses to accept any theist's argument as to the nature of the creator.

There is no difficulty with a creator in evolution. Evolution does not speak to creation, merely to what occurs to things after they are created. Creationism, in its most broadest sense, and perhaps its most purest, does not speak to how things evolve, merely how things came to be in the first place.

If we want to understand creation, we cannot measure it with evolution. And if we want to understand evolution we cannot measure it with creation. What we can understand is that both creation and evolution follow the same inherent patterns that we find in every thing and for which we create wonderful and elegant equations to express their meaning and further develop our own understanding. Science was created by religion which was created by science which was created by religion, on and on, they are intrinsically connected and it is only when we get bogged down in trying to adapt both outdated sciences and religions that we reach the type of hurdle that we seem to be facing here.

I have absolutely no idea what you're going on about.

Anyway, as I said, this thread, and this forum, is about scientific theories, such as evolution, as contrasted with religious hyptheses, such as Magic Poofing.

 

[Autodidact]

...it exists
...what created it will have already existed
...it was created by some thing else
...it will resemble that which created it
...it can be defined
...it is capable of creating".

I am sure I can think of more.



I'm down with glowing trees as long as they don't give me radiation poisoning.

I believe he was looking for a prediction, with a view to disproving or supporting the hypothesis. I don't think it's a scientific statement, so I don't think it's capable of generating such predictions.

 

[Autodidact]

Yeah well computers send bills to dead people also so in other ways they are not so smart and rely on the genius operating them.

You may deflect as much as you like and a probability will remain a probablilty. The result will never amount to certainty.

exactly. And that is why science is never about certainty. For certainty, you go to math.

 

[Autodidact]

Don't act as if you're unaware of what this tread is about.

Actually, I think Herman is unaware of what the thread is about.

 

[Autodidact]

What I am saying is that the cosmological principles currently theorized by most physicists clearly demonstrate that all things in the known universe are created from some thing else that already existed.

I would leave out the "are created from," which implies that science makes assertions about possibly supernatural beings. I agree that (my limited udnerstanding is that) everything in the universe is a transmutation from a previously existing something.

(please, if you have a personal hangup with the word created, I have already posted dozens of synonyms that I am completely fine with substituting)

But they don't work any better.

The assertion that all things are created is a basic fact of reality .

Saying it over and over doesn't make it so.

Just as the assertion that all poodles are dogs is a basic fact of reality.

No, they're quite different kinds of statements. Once is by definition, the other is not.

There is not need to justify a fact until the antithesis can be evidenced.

sorry, the burden of proof remains on one (here, you) making a positive assertion.

If one example of a thing that was not created by another thing can be shown then, absolutely, would a justification be required.

Nope. It's still on you to provide support for your assertion.

However, when every thing in the known universe can clearly be demonstrated to have been created by another thing that already existed then it is time to move on and go from there.

Again, you're using "is created from" in a very odd way. I will agree that everything in the universe is changed "universe-stuff" (matter/energy) that was already in the universe. That tells us nothing about whether there was a creator. To me, it mitigates against a creator, because it says nothing new is ever created, it all just changes according to the laws of physics, with no need for intelligent intervention or creation.

Every thing was created.

Feel free to justify this assertion any time. Accepted.

Did any of the created things in the known universe created themselves?

What "created things?"

So, all things in the known universe are created and no thing creates itself.

You still have not presented anything in support of this claim.

Then, the question arises, did the universe create all things?

No, it doesn't.

Well, the universe is certainly from where all things are created. Every thing in the universe is made from some portion of the universe. Now do these portions make up the totality of the universe? Certainly not. What we know of the known universe is fractional. Using controlled collisions science can create new and foreign elements that only come into existence for single moments. But if we can create them here, then it is most likely that they occur naturally somewhere in the universe. There is much we do not understand, but what we continue to find out is that every thing in the known universe including the universe itself obeys certain laws of science. Immutable laws. By accepting that our science has knowledge of a few of the fundamental laws, which are in most likelihood just subsets of one Law of Nature, we can also accept that the universe itself was most likely created in the same fashion that all things within the universe are created.

So, so wrong. You cannot generalize from within the universe to the universe itself. Doesn't work.

If all things within the universe, including the universe itself, were created, then some other thing that is both superior and beyond the universe must have created the universe.

You have yet to substantiate your assertion.

Ultimately, the question arises, what was that "thing"?

No, it doesn't. We don't know if the universe ever came into existence, or whether it has always existed. I submit that it's unlikely that we ever will know.

That thing cannot be demonstrated with science because science can only deal with what is within the universe.

Yup.

Fortunately, the intellect is not limited by science.

No, you can make up any baloney you like. But without science, you can't figure out whether it's true or not.

The intellect is capable of taking the science of the universe and extrapolating the sequence beyond.

Hey, the intellect is capable of asserting invisible fairies responsible for everything that happens. That doesn't make them real.

Every thing obeys pure science, the Law of Nature. Yet this Law is as intangible as anything we imagine beyond the universe. We can observe how the Law is demonstrated, but the demonstration is not the Law itself.

What Law are you talking about?

The Law is substantial, it never changes.

Make unsubstantiated assertions much?

But every thing, no matter how long it maintains its existence always changes.

This I agree with.

No thing is substantial, no matter how real it may appear.

Sure it is. Substantial != does not change.

If no thing is substantial but that which is intangible is substantial or real then what does that say about the meaningfulness of any of our science?

Wait a minute. Are you some kind of Platonist?

I went off on a tangent there but hopefully you are picking up what I am putting down.

I'm beginning to, and I completely disagree.

Basically, you're speculating. Feel free. Just don't call it science.

 

[Autodidact]

"theorized by most physicists"
Not every crack-pot theory that a single scientist may hold.

Actually, the idea that the universe is eternal is one of the most prominent and plausible current views. We really don't know, but it's far from crack-pot.

A new theory published online by Science this week (www.sciencexpress.org) describes a sheetlike "brane" universe that eternally dies and rises from its ashes, hearkening back to the long-discarded steady-state model of a cosmos without beginning or end. The new idea is an extension of the ekpyrotic or "Big Splat" theory, which physicists introduced last year as an alternative to the standard, inflationary picture of the formation and demise of the universe.

Science 26 April 2002:
Vol. 296. no. 5568, p. 639
DOI: 10.1126/science.296.5568.639a

Surprisingly, the ancient idea of a past-eternal universe is being revived,

Beyond the Big Bang: Competing Scenarios for an Eternal Universe (The Frontiers Collection) [Hardcover]

Rüdiger Vaas (Editor)

In several theories there is a series of infinite, self-sustaining cycles (for example: an eternity of Big Bang-Big crunches).

[wiki]

As an explanation for why the Cosmos exists, the model proposes that we all live in a place that is eternal, and that oscillates geometrically, Universe Today reports.

from here.

Not that I understand what they're talking about, I don't. But I do know it's a current hypothesis which is considered as plausible as not.