The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[Aupmanyav]

Now, the last part, is very intriguing.

Intriguing, for those who are not acquainted with Quantum Mechanics or Hindu philosophy, but not otherwise.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You are equivocating two different meanings of beginning to exist. When you are talking about the material universe beginning to exist, you are claiming that the material that comprises the universe did not exist until your god poofed it into existence. Where as when a baby "comes into existence" the baby is a rearrangement of already existing atoms. All of the atoms of which I am composed, existed before I was ever conceived.

Exactly. Which is the problem. Science has no explanation of where the components that create matter came from in the first place.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Decay is nothing more than the rearrangement of existing stuff via chemical processes. When physicists say that neither matter nor energy are ever destroyed, they really mean that. It is not just hollow words.

But energy didn't create itself. Again you have to have something before it can be rearranged. And you have to have someone create the rules of science for it to happen.

 

[Wildswanderer]

And elements, molecules and compounds "form" through chemical processes, which are natural processes, not by your silly "supernatural" creation or miracles from Genesis.

Facepalm! Do you really not see that all your explanations tell us nothing about why anything exists? I don't need to be re told how atoms work. That doesn't explain the existence of atoms. It does confirm that someone had to create the system that makes it all work however.

 

[Wildswanderer]

@Wildswanderer

Even the individual atoms are not made "from nothing". They are composed of nuclei with protons and neutrons, plus electrons. These are particles that make up a single atom.

Even proton and neutron isn't made from nothing. Each proton or neutron made of 3 quarks.

But as I understand Quantum Field Theory (QFT), every particles including those that make up matters, as well as leptons, bosons (eg photons, gluons), etc, are all made of fields.

These fields existed everywhere in the universe. Quantum fields even exist at the very instance of Big Bang occur.

The quantum fields from the every beginning of our universe, are the building blocks, of every particles, from elementary particles to composite particles (composite particles, like mesons and hadrons (eg protons, neutrons).

So fields are not "nothing".

A turtle on the back of a turtle on the back of another turtle.. where did the first turtle come from?
Again tell me something I don't already know.
Maybe you could claim that everything came from a dot of pure energy with infinite mass...a most unscientific proposition that science makes.
Infinity is clearly in the realm of religion.

 

[ppp]

You are equivocating two different meanings of beginning to exist. When you are talking about the material universe beginning to exist, you are claiming that the material that comprises the universe did not exist until your god poofed it into existence. Where as when a baby "comes into existence" the baby is a rearrangement of already existing atoms. All of the atoms of which I am composed, existed before I was ever conceived.

Poofed into existence. Rearangement of existing things.

Two different meanings of beginning to exist.

So, make a decision. Are you claiming that the universe was a rearrangement of existing material stuff (like a baby). Or did your god simply bring it into existence by his will?

@Wildswanderer I asked you a question. You have indicated neither any comprehension of the question, nor have you shown any good faith effort to answer the question.

 

[Wildswanderer]

@Wildswanderer I asked you a question. You have indicated neither any comprehension of the question, nor have you shown any good faith effort to answer the question.

You are flip flopping. You said nothing is created from another cause now you are claiming you said something else.
No, nothing can be observed coming from nothing... that's the whole point! Where did it all start?
Scientists don't know.

Hence they propose the multiverse just to kick the can further up the road which solves nothing.

 

[ppp]

You are flip flopping. You said nothing is created from another cause now you are claiming you said something else.
No, nothing can be observed coming from nothing... that's the whole point! Where did it all start?
Scientists don't know.

Hence they propose the multiverse just to kick the can further up the road which solves nothing.

Again, that is not a response to the substance of what I said. Just a general uncomprehending denial. You may have well as said nothing more than, Nuh-uh.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Again, that is not a response to the substance of what I said. Just a general uncomprehending denial. You may have well as said nothing more than, Nuh-uh.

You aren't addressing the issue at all. You are just dancing around it.

 

[ppp]

You aren't addressing the issue at all. You are just dancing around it.

Again, that is not a response to the substance of what I said. Just a general uncomprehending denial. You may have well as said nothing more than, Nuh-uh. We can talk more when you can get off your script and make a substantive contribution to the conversation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That we live in a cursed world.
The fact that we long for a world that doesn't have these defects should tell us that we were made for a different world.

I asked you about what you think creation tells you about God. Not about what you think about the state of the world or what you think motivates people. You said you can learn a lot. What have you learned that is demonstrable with facts?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

BtW this is not necessarily the case. Most predators are opportunists, they will take whoever is available.

But it is also the case and the specific one that I would like to see you explain in terms of what you claim.

 

[Aupmanyav]

No, nothing can be observed coming from nothing... that's the whole point! Where did it all start?
Scientists don't know.

Yes, science does not know but is trying to know. Nothing has been observed to come out from 'nothing', but who knows? There are 'ex-nihilo' theories. Otherwise tell us, from where did your God pop up?

 

[wellwisher]

Exactly. Which is the problem. Science has no explanation of where the components that create matter came from in the first place.

I have a solution that integrates science and religion. Matter and energy are both part of space-time. If we started the universe before space-time existed there would be no matter or energy in the universe since these only exist in space-time. For example, photons of energy have wavelength and frequency; distance and time, integrated like space-time. If space and time was not integrated, wavelength and frequency would not be integrated and energy would not exist; wavelength without frequency is not energy.

The hint for how to do this; before matter and energy, is indirectly inferred by Einstein's theory of Special Relativity. If plug in the speed of light into the three equations of Special Relativity, mass, distance and time all become infinite and discontinuous; division by zero. Space-time, as we know it, breaks down at the speed of light, into separated space and separated time that are no longer connected as space-time. At the speed of light, space and time can now act independently of each other.

If one could move in space without the constants of time, one could be anywhere in the universe in zero time. This is traditionally called omnipresence. Wormholes behave this way. If one could move in time without the constraint of space, one could know the state of entire universe, everywhere, at any time. This is traditionally called infinite wisdom or omniscience.

This state of existence where space and time are separated is not the same as in space-time where space and time are connected. One possible way to describe the difference would be to look at how the human imagination works. At the speed of light reference, where space-time breaks down the universe would be information based instead of matter and energy based.

As an example, in my imagination, I can travel to the sun in a second with bird wings, and lounge in the fusion core to get a tan. This is possible in the imagination since it only manipulates information. it is not possible to do in space-time, since connected space and time create practical limitations for what matter, energy and speed can do. However my imagination is still able to manipulate information in ways that can violate these practical limitations of space-time. The speed of light reference, where space-time breaks down, would be one based on information; consciousness, without the constraints of matter and energy; virtual type of reality based on information.

To create our Big Bang inertial universe, with all the known limitations of matter and energy; laws of physics, all we need to do is move in time without space and move in space without time, as usual, but in such a way space and time can appear to overlap; brood over the deep. This choice of limitation results in a huge loss of entropy; infinite possibilities of the imagination will become limited possibilities. The loss of local entropy will be highly exothermic and results in energy appearing at the soft intersection point in space---time. Since mass cannot travel at the speed of light, the appearance of mass firms up space-time; leaves the speed of light realm. The inertial universe can grow from there.

The 2nd law, which states that the entropy of the universe has to increase, stems from continued connection of space-time to the speed of light reference. where entropy is infinite; infinite possibilities. Our space-time based universe has to expand and become more and more complex; atoms and then molecules, with life and consciousness part of the increasing entropy path to the future, driven by the 2nd law. Religions speak of the afterlife where the inertial matter based body reminds behind, but our information of our life; our soul, comes with us to paradise; information realm.

 

[gnostic]

It does confirm that someone had to create the system that makes it all work however.

This is just based on lot of wish-washy superstitions.

Creationists like to wish that something that cannot be explain, therefore “god did it” isn’t an explanation, but just wishful thinking, that have bunch load of fallacies, from circular reasoning, to argument from ignorance, etc, and overkill in confirmation bias.

Both creationism and Intelligent Design creationism cannot even offer testable for their religious belief, except to say god must have did this or did that.

The Intelligent Design adherents are still using the same outdated, backwards “God did it” adage, but now they used “Designer did it”.

It is outdated, illogical, unoriginal and untestable adage that have been overused unimaginative creationists.

This is why ID adherents often used Universe or life is too complex, so must be designed, therefore it must have Designer.

They think that all that they need to say, but those so-called (ID) experts from Discovery Institute, are not known for their logic, nor for their intellectual honesty, nor for their scientific literacy & competency, PERIOD.

Because of their lack of testable explanations/predictions, Intelligent Design should be renamed Unintelligent Chaos, because they offered no intelligence in their concept.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Again, that is not a response to the substance of what I said. Just a general uncomprehending denial. You may have well as said nothing more than, Nuh-uh. We can talk more when you can get off your script and make a substantive contribution to the conversation.

In other words you have no answers. You might as well have said so.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I asked you about what you think creation tells you about God. Not about what you think about the state of the world or what you think motivates people. You said you can learn a lot. What have you learned that is demonstrable with facts?

I responded to a specific question about the broken parts of nature. Nature in general tells us that God is artistic- there's no reason that colors are required in nature for example...it tells us he loves order and patterns and diversity. That he is a big God, creating a massive universe we can't see the send of... That's just a little of it.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Yes, science does not know but is trying to know. Nothing has been observed to come out from 'nothing', but who knows? There are 'ex-nihilo' theories. Otherwise tell us, from where did your God pop up?

Obviously you can either have eternal energy which came from nothing that we can explain or eternal matter or an eternal being... take your pick.
Either way it's beyond the realm of science to explain how that's possible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No they haven't.

I gave you the definition of "ape" and asked you how humans don't fit the criteria.
You have yet to respond.

You have no answer, off course. All you have are a priori beliefs that fly in the face of evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

By the word of an all powerful being.

Was that word "abracadabra"?

I believe.
I don't need proof.

And with that, you have just demonstrated how any type of attempted intellectual conversation with you on the topic, is completely futile.

I bet you don't even realize why.

And the same is true of those who believe what they are taught about origins in school.

No.