The creator did it.

[Polymath257]

Interesting that you jump to conclusions as to what i was talking about. And why the emphasis on atheist? Sound like you have issues with atheism.

Anyway, i was not considering Krauss's work although it is considered a valid hypothesis by many prominent scientists. Even if you have found one who disagrees.

I was considering something far more recent, quantum vacuum bubbles

Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

Now all you have to do is find someone who disagrees with the maths and you can have another uninformed laugh.

Color me not as impressed as I would like to be. This paper assumes a previously existing 'false vacuum' in which bubbles form of 'true vacuum', giving our expanding universe.

One thing they mentioned, but glossed over, is that it is far from clear how a universe like what we would see could arise in this way. In particular, how does the matter originate? They make a claim that the exponential expansion would drive apart spontaneously arising particle-anti-particle pairs, but only say that will be a matter for their future research.

More relevantly, the assumption of a previously existing spacetime and a false vacuum state is part of the 'something from nothing' issue. Now, it is quite possible that this previously existing spacetime just 'always exists' and that these 'bubble universes' simply arise at a certain rate within it.

So, at most, this paper shows how a transition from a DeSitter cosmology with a false vacuum to something that looks like a pre-inflationary bubble could happen. It doens't solve the issue of how to stop inflation, nor of the origin of the overall false vacuum.

 

[ChristineM]

Color me not as impressed as I would like to be. This paper assumes a previously existing 'false vacuum' in which bubbles form of 'true vacuum', giving our expanding universe.

One thing they mentioned, but glossed over, is that it is far from clear how a universe like what we would see could arise in this way. In particular, how does the matter originate? They make a claim that the exponential expansion would drive apart spontaneously arising particle-anti-particle pairs, but only say that will be a matter for their future research.

More relevantly, the assumption of a previously existing spacetime and a false vacuum state is part of the 'something from nothing' issue. Now, it is quite possible that this previously existing spacetime just 'always exists' and that these 'bubble universes' simply arise at a certain rate within it.

So, at most, this paper shows how a transition from a DeSitter cosmology with a false vacuum to something that looks like a pre-inflationary bubble could happen. It doens't solve the issue of how to stop inflation, nor of the origin of the overall false vacuum.

It is what it is, an idea based on mathematics as many ideas are. The point was the hood apologist made assumptions of my comment, i provided the paper to justify my own statement.

 

[tas8831]

I made the point.

If your point was that you take the words of your creationist heroes at face value without any direct knowledge of the issues at hand, then sure, good (bad) on you.
Nothing to be proud of.

And I wonder what you make of this obvious refutation of your non-Wells source on at least this one 'example' of theirs:

So then surely you can show us an example of Haeckel's drawings being used in textbooks TODAY as support for either Haeckel's ideas or the ToE.

Let me see...

I have:

Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (Sinauer, 1998)

It is in my hands right now.

index...
Haeckel, Ernst, 728
on embryology and evolution,651, 652

p. 651
No drawings OR pictures.
"Darwin declared in a letter to the botanist Asa Gray that "embryologyis to me by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of a change of forms," and his followers, especially Ernst Haeckel, used embryological similarities as a major source of evidence for phylogenetic relationships."

p. 652
No drawings OR pictures
Section titled "Ontogeny and Phylogeny"
"...in 1866 he (Haeckel) issued his famous BIOGENETIC LAW: "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." By this, Haeckel meant that in the course of its development, an individual successively passes through the adult forms of all of its ancestors..."
"But by the end of the 19th century, it was already clear that the law seldom holds. The real development of organisms differs in several different ways from Haeckel's simple scheme..."

On p. 653 there is a rendering of similar embryos - but the caption indicates that it is in reference to von Baer's law, not Haeckel's, and that the drawing is from Romanes (1901), not Haeckel, and explains that 'all vertebrate classes share many common features early in development...'

Which is true.

p. 728
Sole mention of Haeckel:

"... Ernst Haeckel in Germany and Thomas Huxley in England, described evidence for common ancestry with the apes."

That is it.​

Honestly, I haven't read Wells.
But I've read Axe, "Undeniable ". And "Darwin's Doubt", by Meyer.

They present all kind of evidence for ID. You should broaden your knowledge.

Cool way to absolve yourself of having just posted a bunch of copy-pasta nonsense.

But since you've read those chaps, how about you present what you think are 1 of their best arguments FOR ID/creation that does NOT rely on 'evolution cannot explain this'*, and explain them here for us with no copy-pastes?



*because one will note that no arguments/evidence supporting evolution consists of 'creation can't explain this'

 

[Audie]

I



*because one will note that no arguments/evidence supporting evolution consists of 'creation can't explain this'

Nor yet do they ever have any sort of data
such as would disprove ToE.

For all the reading of creo-lit, they have yet
to pick from all of that one datum point.

What the heck is the prob???

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Nor yet do they ever have any sort of data
such as would disprove ToE.

For all the reading of creo-lit, they have yet
to pick from all of that one datum point.

What the heck is the prob???

Do you really believe that natural selection working on Random, Undirected mutations (which are mostly neutral and deleterious -- rarely beneficial) can create the millions of innovative and diverse body plans we see in species of flora and fauna living and extinct, and can account for the symbiosis we observe among many organisms? In 560 million years?! (Not 3.5 billion.)

If so...you have more faith than I've ever had.

Haven't the experiments of Drusophila and E.coli taught you just how stable and invariant the genome really is?

And we're not even talking about the origin of life!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you really believe that natural selection working on Random, Undirected mutations (which are mostly neutral and deleterious -- rarely beneficial) can create the millions of innovative and diverse body plans we see in species of flora and fauna living and extinct, and can account for the symbiosis we observe among many organisms? In 560 million years?! (Not 3.5 billion.)

If so...you have more faith than I've ever had.

Haven't the experiments of Drusophila and E.coli taught you just how stable and invariant the genome really is?

And we're not even talking about the origin of life!

The experiments on E. coli confirmed evolution. And you do not understand the experiments on fruit flies (by the way when trying to impress with a technical term please spell it correctly).

 

[Audie]

Do you really believe that natural selection working on Random, Undirected mutations (which are mostly neutral and deleterious -- rarely beneficial) can create the millions of innovative and diverse body plans we see in species of flora and fauna living and extinct, and can account for the symbiosis we observe among many organisms? In 560 million years?! (Not 3.5 billion.)

If so...you have more faith than I've ever had.

Haven't the experiments of Drusophila and E.coli taught you just how stable and invariant the genome really is?

And we're not even talking about the origin of life!

Good you are not mixing up the theory of evolution with
the origin of life.

You have offered opinions from one demonstrably
unskilled in the art, so like my opinions of
Russian Literature, of no value.

Now, if you can offer some actual data, well,
that would be interesting.

What I see from you guys is you will talk about
just anything, but not, you know, data.

 

[tas8831]

Do you really believe that natural selection working on Random, Undirected mutations (which are mostly neutral and deleterious -- rarely beneficial) can create the millions of innovative and diverse body plans we see in species of flora and fauna living and extinct, and can account for the symbiosis we observe among many organisms? In 560 million years?! (Not 3.5 billion.)

If so...you have more faith than I've ever had.

Right - you have faith that one of apparently many ancient Hebrew tribal deities is the one 'true' Deity and that this one deity created the universe and everything in it from nothing, and at some point made a fully formed adult human male from silicates.

Haven't the experiments of Drusophila and E.coli taught you just how stable and invariant the genome really is?

Tell us more - with examples (not copy pasta creationist tripe).

And we're not even talking about the origin of life!

Right - that is all Hebrew tribal deity stuff.

Weird how after all that major expenditure of magic a few thousand years ago, all we are subject to is the occasional Jesus silhouette on burnt toast...

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The experiments on E. coli confirmed evolution. And you do not understand the experiments on fruit flies (by the way when trying to impress with a technical term please spell it correctly).

The E. coli is still E. coli.
I've never denied microevolution, so your rebuttal is a strawman.
And quit telling me what I "do not understand"....arrogance is never becoming.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Good you are not mixing up the theory of evolution with
the origin of life.

You have offered opinions from one demonstrably
unskilled in the art, so like my opinions of
Russian Literature, of no value.

Now, if you can offer some actual data, well,
that would be interesting.

What I see from you guys is you will talk about
just anything, but not, you know, data.

So, you sidestep the question. Figured as much.

"What I see from you guys is you will talk about
just anything, but not, you know, data."

You mean data....like, "Pakicetus is the forerunner of whales"?
Lol.
More faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The E. coli is still E. coli.
I've never denied microevolution, so your rebuttal is a strawman.
And quit telling me what I "do not understand"....arrogance is never becoming.

Of course it is. Change of kind is a creationist strawman. You are still an ape, you are still a mammal, you are still a tetrapod, you are still a vertebrate, you are still a eukaryote. No change in kind all the way back. What you demand to see is something that would negate the theory of evolution. That is a strange request.

And hopefully you do not understand. Pointing that out is not arrogance. The alternative is that you are lying and I sincerely hope that is not the case.

As an exercise assume that the theory of evolution is right. If that is the case what should we see with the E. coli experiment?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, you sidestep the question. Figured as much.

"What I see from you guys is you will talk about
just anything, but not, you know, data."

You mean data....like, "Pakicetus is the forerunner of whales"?
Lol.
More faith.

Please don't make false claims about others. That is clearly against the rules here. There is evidence that leads to the conclusion that Pakicetus is a transitional form. But to show this we would first have to go over the scientific method, what is and what is not evidence, and then finally the concept of transitional fossils. I am willing to go over those if you are.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, you sidestep the question. Figured as much.

"What I see from you guys is you will talk about
just anything, but not, you know, data."

You mean data....like, "Pakicetus is the forerunner of whales"?
Lol.
More faith.

By the way, take me up on my challenge and I will discuss any data with you. If you truly understand those concepts the discussion leading into the discussion of pakicetus and other transitional forms should not take too long. Learning these things can only make you a better debater. You won't repeat old errors and you will be better able to support new claims.

 

[Audie]

The E. coli is still E. coli.
I've never denied microevolution, so your rebuttal is a strawman.
And quit telling me what I "do not understand"....arrogance is never becoming.

Do you find arrogant for you to claim to know so much
more than 99%-100% of all scientists, or more like a
bit unrealistic? You dont find your abruptly frozen
mammoth unrealistic, so prolly not..

Do you find it unrealistic for someone to say you
dont understand ( have no idea) what you are talking
about?

There are certain tells we notice. Like baseball fans
might notice if I were talking about rackets and goalies.

Or someone might notice the creosite pratts you ome up with.

You know how someone who is prrtending cannot
fake you out, if you do know the topic. Yeah...
they might think you is arrogant if you mentioned
they is fulla beans. Same deal here.

Best you stay uninformed, for lo, you will face
the K Wise dilemma sometime, if you pursue
knowledge too long.

 

[Audie]

So, you sidestep the question. Figured as much.

"What I see from you guys is you will talk about
just anything, but not, you know, data."

You mean data....like, "Pakicetus is the forerunner of whales"?
Lol.
More faith.

Lol to your idea of what data might be.

I wuz gonna ask ya if you could gimme a factoid
type datum point contrsry to ToE but, ya dont seem ta
know data from whatsamatta, and there is no such
datas anyway, so it is cruel to ask, and us being pals outside
the ring, it wont do ta be cruel to me pal.

Bonus pts if you can figure out what sort of dialect
that would be.

 

[paarsurrey]

What’s wrong with it, is that it relies on belief in superstition...and worse, blind faith.

Saying “god did it”, don’t require logic and don’t require understanding WHAT it is or HOW does it work. And superstition and blind faith don’t require verifiable evidences.

There is nothing wrong with “god did it”, ONLY IF you are satisfied with make-believe and wallowing in your ignorant fantasy...or in your fairytale delusion. The “god did it” argument are only for those people who don’t want to understand how the world work.

Yet people belonging to religions have equally, if not more, contributed to science than of the no-religions.
Please remain in one's own framework of mind, if that please one.
Regards

 

[tas8831]

The E. coli is still E. coli.
I've never denied microevolution, so your rebuttal is a strawman.
And quit telling me what I "do not understand"....arrogance is never becoming.

Which is more arrogant?

The one speaking from a background of relevant knowledge, or the one that relies on copy-pasting nonsense?

 

[tas8831]

Cool how the creationist ignores exposure of his gullibility and arrogance....

If your point was that you take the words of your creationist heroes at face value without any direct knowledge of the issues at hand, then sure, good (bad) on you.
Nothing to be proud of.

And I wonder what you make of this obvious refutation of your non-Wells source on at least this one 'example' of theirs:

So then surely you can show us an example of Haeckel's drawings being used in textbooks TODAY as support for either Haeckel's ideas or the ToE.

Let me see...

I have:

Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (Sinauer, 1998)

It is in my hands right now.

index...
Haeckel, Ernst, 728
on embryology and evolution,651, 652

p. 651
No drawings OR pictures.
"Darwin declared in a letter to the botanist Asa Gray that "embryologyis to me by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of a change of forms," and his followers, especially Ernst Haeckel, used embryological similarities as a major source of evidence for phylogenetic relationships."

p. 652
No drawings OR pictures
Section titled "Ontogeny and Phylogeny"
"...in 1866 he (Haeckel) issued his famous BIOGENETIC LAW: "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." By this, Haeckel meant that in the course of its development, an individual successively passes through the adult forms of all of its ancestors..."
"But by the end of the 19th century, it was already clear that the law seldom holds. The real development of organisms differs in several different ways from Haeckel's simple scheme..."

On p. 653 there is a rendering of similar embryos - but the caption indicates that it is in reference to von Baer's law, not Haeckel's, and that the drawing is from Romanes (1901), not Haeckel, and explains that 'all vertebrate classes share many common features early in development...'

Which is true.

p. 728
Sole mention of Haeckel:

"... Ernst Haeckel in Germany and Thomas Huxley in England, described evidence for common ancestry with the apes."

That is it.​

Cool way to absolve yourself of having just posted a bunch of copy-pasta nonsense.

But since you've read those chaps, how about you present what you think are 1 of their best arguments FOR ID/creation that does NOT rely on 'evolution cannot explain this'*, and explain them here for us with no copy-pastes?



*because one will note that no arguments/evidence supporting evolution consists of 'creation can't explain this'

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet people belonging to religions have equally, if not more, contributed to science than of the no-religions.
Please remain in one's own framework of mind, if that please one.
Regards

That is only because historically the vast majority were theists. If one looks at present contributions the percentage by atheists far exceed their percentage of the general population.

 

[tas8831]

So funny!

Yes, it is Very easy. Empirical evidence in every field of science repeatedly discovers that the origin of functional and interacting information always has intelligence as it’s source.

Human intelligence, yes.

Or human stupidity when it relies on copy-pasting fake news from other creationists, but that is another documented story.

At best, you entire premise rests on an analogy to human activity.

BRAVO! Great 'science' there, champ!