Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Polymath257]

if I may.....

God created movement
Man created the time

There is no God to create either. But motion and thereby time exist whether humans are around or not.

 

[james bond]

Could you give the specific Hawking quote here? It seems you have *really* misunderstood him if you think he said that.


Depending on which stage of his career you got the quote from, it is quite possible he didn't think there *was* anything other than aftermath. If time begins at the BB, there is nothing before.


This is true and is one of the larger mysteries right now. We know some differences between matter and anti-matter that might be relevant, but the specifics are far from clear.


He didn't say spirit because there is no evidence for a spirit. And it is quite clear you are not understanding something that Hawking is saying: he knows full well that gas is matter. Do you?



Sorry, but this is wrong. Science does NOT support the story in the Bible. It hasn't done that for the last 400 years. There is, however, plenty of support for the BB: that the universe was once hot and dense and expanded to what we see today. What, if anything, was before that, we do not know because of lack of evidence.

I'm going by his youtube in #3476. Much more descriptive than a quote such as a universe from nothing. I've watched it twice and do not know what it could be whether it is matter or not. We have to recognize that it's timeless, spaceless and I think leibowitz was questioning whether it is matter or not which is what we are discussing.

As for those Pillars of Creation pics, what we are seeing is time slices like you said, but it doesn't show how one shot got to another. For example, most people have photos of themselves growing up, but it doesn't explain what happened in-between. What creation scientists think is that these stars are dying and giving off those lines that we see.

 

[james bond]

Wonderful.
If that's the case, don't get so bent out of shape when I try to bring the more outlandish part of this conversation back to the origin on a sbustance (be it Gold or anything else)



Are you referring to the original source of gold on Earth or of gold in general?

The thing is, though, that the source of origin of gold isn't really debatable...
The processes that can create gold exist and are understood. The splitting of hairs that you seem caught up on about who prefers which delivery theory are both pointless and inaccurate. If it's shown that gold can be created in neutron collisions, then we know that gold can be created in neutron collisions. If it's shown that gold can be created in supernova, then gold can be created in super nova. If it's shown that gold was available during the accretion process and sank lower in the molten Earth than lighter elements, then gold was available during the accretion process and thus sank lower into the Earth than the lighter elements...

What we have is a comprehensive understanding of how any element (gold) became available on a planetary surface. Why in the world would you pigeon-hole a single process as the ONLY process?

The only ideas that need to be heartily rejected are those that have no substantiation - like deitic magic.



Please explain why you don't believe this...
Explain why a heavy element sinking deeper into the molten Earth doesn't make sense to you.



Like I said - comprehensive study and understanding.

Can this process create gold? Yes.
Can other processes create gold? Yes.

And?

We have been talking about gold on earth and how it got there. Apparently, polymath257 believes there is more gold that is unseen deep in the earth, possibly near the core due to the gold being in the nebula and it was placed inside when the planet was forming in a swirl.. As for how gold is made, you said it can be synthesized. What did you mean by that? I recognize that you have a hypothesis with the meteor, but if you look at the artists rendition of it, it's a huge meteor ball almost the same size as the earth smashing into earth. After this, let's go to Flatland.

 

[jonathan180iq]

It's not like creation science makes up its own science. They look at the latest science and accept it if valid. Where they disagree, then they will write an article on it or even a single sentence hinting at what they find useful.

They do, in fact, make up their own science...
Two Kinds of Science?

"Historical Science" is a complete fabrication created by the Creationist movement in an attempt to cast doubt on any scientific conclusions that don't agree with their faith. You'll find the idea nowhere else in the scientific community.

They have presupposed conclusions and then accept only what fits into those presuppositions. That is not Science at all - it's bias.

Their disagreements, based on bias and not actual field work, hold no clout whatsoever.

In the case of gold, the issue is not with how the gold was created and got to earth. The big issue is that the earth was created already. So, they basically disagree with the nebula theory which Polymath257 believes.

That conclusion is completely bonkers... And I'll show you why.

Since the creation process for heavier elements is known, in many different iterations to which you've already agreed, it makes no sense whatsoever to posit that the Earth, and all of it's heavy elements, could somehow have formed before the processes that formed those elements... You have to see what it is that you're actually saying.

Can baseballs be made before the hide and stitching that holds them together? Can they be formed without the cork, rubber, and thread that constitutes their core? To somehow argue that the baseball was made before the parts that make a baseball is huge cognitive disconnect.

Creationists may need and want that conclusion to be true - but it's wholly nonsensical.

Now, since the time of creation

When was that, exactly? And how do you know?

there have been all the events that you and secular science describes and that is accounted, too. Today, the BBT is the prevalent theory and other theories (based on evo thinking) emanate out from it. Thus, the main disagreement is with that. It's explained in the Open Letter to the Scientific Community -- Open Letter to the Scientific Community . So there is no need for the condescension or thinking that we just believe in fairy tales (the fairy tales are the side of evolutionary thinking and evolution (biology) <== true dat). After all, who created modern science but theologians and who has the greater list of accomplishments.

There was indeed a time when Science and Theology forged ahead, hand-in-hand. That was during a period when Theology wasn't scared of findings that contradicted their presupposed conclusions. It was an era of great discovery and many great names took their credit for being both deep philosophical applicants of their faith while also daring to challenge inaccurate assumptions about the physical world laid down by arcane versions of said Theology. However, in recent years, among the creationist movement specifically, there is such a stanch advocacy for strict adherence to this particular interpretation of the Christian texts that an entire generation of Christians are being taught wholly unsubstantiated falsehoods about the observable world. Made-up science is being touted as an equal to hundreds of years worth of actual field research, and people are forgetting how to think clearly and separate spiritual lessons and mythologies from factual, evidentual, events.

That is a very real problem.

Opinions are not created equal. And while everyone is certainly entitled to one, the quality of that opinion is directly tied to the validity of the substantiating evidence behind it, and nothing else. How you feel about your opinion, whether you like it or not, and how vehemently you can defend it have nothing at all to do with whether or not it's a good opinion. The only measure of any idea lies in how well it is substantiated.

The BBT is a prevalent scientific theory because it is heavily substantiated and continues to hold up to scrutiny - not because it's a necessity of evolutionary thinking. You've got this whole thing backwards.

There are two trains of thought in this conversation, and only one of them continues to make new discoveries and refine the understandings that human have about the world we live in. The other produces no social or scientific breakthroughs and actively attempts to slow the progress of discovery and knowledge, replacing it with pseudo-scientific attempts at explaining ancient mythologies... The two sides are not equal - in substance or content - in any way.

Also, your posts are getting obnoxious and unreadable because I don't think you can think for yourself. I didn't just learn to regurgitate stuff in school. Teachers think I'm a great convergent thinker and I'm working on being more divergent. That's why I do creative writing as such as I'm not musically inclined or have talent in the arts. One side of my mother's side of the family had that. The other are in academia. I've work in computer science.

You do a good job of playing both the victim and the bully.

Congratulations on your creative writing.
However, this thread is a great example of your divergent, as opposed to convergent, thinking.

Yes, I know that. I threw that in as what few creationists hypothesize. That is not found in the Bible although there are many verses with gold in it. I would have mentioned it if the origin was in there.

You're admitting here that you recognize the difference between scientific conclusions and creationist wishes... That's good. Maintain that discernment as you approach other biblical topics as well.

(Is it at least possible that the origin of gold is not found in the Bible because the writers had absolutely no idea what it was made of, where it came from, or how it got there?)

I leave it at that. I just wanted to know what you believed .

So, you aren't going to clarify your statement about water in the Universe then?

 

[james bond]

There is no God to create either. But motion and thereby time exist whether humans are around or not.

The majority thinking whether God or incredible expansion is that before the universe started that it was timeless and spaceless. We're trying to establish whether it was immaterial. With creation, God created time, space and matter. Some Christians view this as the Trinity. I would think the majority of BBT proponents say that time started from this point on based on the concepts of spacetime which I have been describing (got more descriptive terms now).

EDIT: I mean immaterial for BBT proponents. Christians have immaterial (spirit). I think we agree God or this single point has to be all-powerful either way.

 

[jonathan180iq]

We have been talking about gold on earth and how it got there. Apparently, polymath257 believes there is more gold that is unseen deep in the earth, possibly near the core due to the gold being in the nebula and it was placed inside when the planet was forming in a swirl..

He is right, and there is. It's a very natural conclusion based on the density of it's mass. Like other heavy elements, it's not going to float on top of less dense elements. (This is why rocks sink through water)

As for how gold is made, you said it can be synthesized. What did you mean by that?

The synthesis (formation) of ALL elements heavier than Hydrogen and Helium come from the same place - stellar processes.
nucleosynthesis | chemical process
http://www.indiana.edu/~g302/Elements.pdf
Nuclear synthesis
https://www.quora.com/If-iron-is-th...e-so-many-elements-heavier-than-iron-on-earth

I recognize that you have a hypothesis with the meteor, but if you look at the artists rendition of it, it's a huge meteor ball almost the same size as the earth smashing into earth.

No... insertion of outside elements from planetary impacts (like meteors and comets) is ONE delivery method for extra stuff (gold in this case.) This is validated through the discovery of foreign objects all over the earth. Precious metals have been found in these objects.

Like the Earth, there could be no way for these elements to naturally occur on both the Earth and the impactor unless they formed under the same processes, from similar materials, ahead of time.

 

[Polymath257]

We have been talking about gold on earth and how it got there. Apparently, polymath257 believes there is more gold that is unseen deep in the earth, possibly near the core due to the gold being in the nebula and it was placed inside when the planet was forming in a swirl.. As for how gold is made, you said it can be synthesized. What did you mean by that? I recognize that you have a hypothesis with the meteor, but if you look at the artists rendition of it, it's a huge meteor ball almost the same size as the earth smashing into earth. After this, let's go to Flatland.

Where did you get the idea that you have gold synthesis with a meteor? The *synthesis* happens during the supernova or the neutron star collision. It is made in a nuclear reaction (called the r-reaction) in which neutrons are accumulated on the nucleus, thereby producing heavier elements.

*If* there was a meteor, it was in the nebula after the supernova and was part of the general collapse of that part of the cloud. The Earth formed by the collision of *millions* of small pieces of rock, just like the other planets and just like what we see happening in other systems today.

 

[Polymath257]

The majority thinking whether God or incredible expansion is that before the universe started that it was timeless and spaceless.

If it was 'timeless', in what sense was it 'before'? The word 'before' requires time.

We're trying to establish whether it was immaterial. With creation, God created time, space and matter. Some Christians view this as the Trinity. I would think the majority of BBT proponents say that time started from this point on based on the concepts of spacetime which I have been describing (got more descriptive terms now).

Standard General Relativity, upon which BB is based, has time starting at the BB and *nothing* before: the term 'before' simply doesn't apply because there isn't time.

With quantum 'corrections', it seems much more likely that time is infinite into the past as well as eithe ranother contracting universe or a multiverse of some sort.

EDIT: I mean immaterial for BBT proponents. Christians have immaterial (spirit). I think we agree God or this single point has to be all-powerful either way.

I have no idea what 'immaterial for BBT proponents' could possible mean.

It is a significant leap to assume a singularity is 'all-powerful' in any conventional sense.

The question of whether a creator has to be 'all-powerful' is yet another leap that is often taken.

 

[james bond]

They do, in fact, make up their own science...
Two Kinds of Science?

"Historical Science" is a complete fabrication created by the Creationist movement in an attempt to cast doubt on any scientific conclusions that don't agree with their faith. You'll find the idea nowhere else in the scientific community.

They have presupposed conclusions and then accept only what fits into those presuppositions. That is not Science at all - it's bias.

Their disagreements, based on bias and not actual field work, hold no clout whatsoever.



That conclusion is completely bonkers... And I'll show you why.

Since the creation process for heavier elements is known, in many different iterations to which you've already agreed, it makes no sense whatsoever to posit that the Earth, and all of it's heavy elements, could somehow have formed before the processes that formed those elements... You have to see what it is that you're actually saying.

Can baseballs be made before the hide and stitching that holds them together? Can they be formed without the cork, rubber, and thread that constitutes their core? To somehow argue that the baseball was made before the parts that make a baseball is huge cognitive disconnect.

Creationists may need and want that conclusion to be true - but it's wholly nonsensical.


When was that, exactly? And how do you know?



There was indeed a time when Science and Theology forged ahead, hand-in-hand. That was during a period when Theology wasn't scared of findings that contradicted their presupposed conclusions. It was an era of great discovery and many great names took their credit for being both deep philosophical applicants of their faith while also daring to challenge inaccurate assumptions about the physical world laid down by arcane versions of said Theology. However, in recent years, among the creationist movement specifically, there is such a stanch advocacy for strict adherence to this particular interpretation of the Christian texts that an entire generation of Christians are being taught wholly unsubstantiated falsehoods about the observable world. Made-up science is being touted as an equal to hundreds of years worth of actual field research, and people are forgetting how to think clearly and separate spiritual lessons and mythologies from factual, evidentual, events.

That is a very real problem.

Opinions are not created equal. And while everyone is certainly entitled to one, the quality of that opinion is directly tied to the validity of the substantiating evidence behind it, and nothing else. How you feel about your opinion, whether you like it or not, and how vehemently you can defend it have nothing at all to do with whether or not it's a good opinion. The only measure of any idea lies in how well it is substantiated.

The BBT is a prevalent scientific theory because it is heavily substantiated and continues to hold up to scrutiny - not because it's a necessity of evolutionary thinking. You've got this whole thing backwards.

There are two trains of thought in this conversation, and only one of them continues to make new discoveries and refine the understandings that human have about the world we live in. The other produces no social or scientific breakthroughs and actively attempts to slow the progress of discovery and knowledge, replacing it with pseudo-scientific attempts at explaining ancient mythologies... The two sides are not equal - in substance or content - in any way.



You do a good job of playing both the victim and the bully.

Congratulations on your creative writing.
However, this thread is a great example of your divergent, as opposed to convergent, thinking.


You're admitting here that you recognize the difference between scientific conclusions and creationist wishes... That's good. Maintain that discernment as you approach other biblical topics as well.

(Is it at least possible that the origin of gold is not found in the Bible because the writers had absolutely no idea what it was made of, where it came from, or how it got there?)


So, you aren't going to clarify your statement about water in the Universe then?

First, I apologize if you think I am bullying you. I'm not trying to play the victim either, but am looking for the truth. Bullying or playing the victim is not my intent, but you have to agree part of being on a forum is one-upmanship. So to your post. I don't have that much time, so will try to sum up everything instead of addressing point-by-point.

What you posted about two kinds of science is true. It argues for creation science being observational science as God is the witness during creation of the universe and all that he created. However, you criticize historical science and that's where the disagreement came in during the 1800s. Charles Lyell proposed uniformitarianism as science of using the present to study the past. Part of his motivation was to debunk what he was learning with historical or Biblical science. Thus, his geology theories were going in the opposite direction. And you know it led to Charles Darwin who was his pupil. While the creation scientists maintain that one studies history as it happened and is described as such. They list major events that happened as written in the Bible. It starts in the 1800s with catastrophism as described in the Bible. Many things happened to the earth. The life entire population from Adam and Eve were wiped out except for the few. Sure, it is incredulous in your mind or way of thinking, but if you delve into it, then you start to see the evidence backs up what is written from the 3rd century. It's not blind faith.

As for the gold, your meteor hypothesis says that earth was already existing. Again, my interest in gold isn't with exploring the origins, but somehow we ended up in this discussion. What I got was the supernova and now it appears the two dead stars colliding may have some validity. What I got was that the gold was formed through this fusion process in outer space and was expelled into the earth. The earth was already there. That was already assumed (not by me, but by the theorists of the supernova). It didn't state whether by creation or expansion. That was moot. This is what I mean by my post. It was to know how the gold ended up where it did in the forms where we can reach. That's as far as I went with my origins until we got into these other hypothesis. I'm willing to continue discussing if people want to. I don't think there is a definitive answer, but who has the most evidence.

Time of creation opens up another can of worms, so let's stay with what we have. As for the rest of your post, it's diatribe against creation science. Let's stick to the discussion about the single point that became the universe. Was it material or immaterial? Hawking describes millions of a seconds after the initial explosion what happened. Obviously, he wasn't there to witness, so it's hypothesis using quantum physics and incredible luck. As for the time of the expansion, it was explained that they worked backwards to estimate this time (This has been changed from 20 billion years down to 15 billion and now 13.7 billion years).

 

[james bond]

Where did you get the idea that you have gold synthesis with a meteor? The *synthesis* happens during the supernova or the neutron star collision. It is made in a nuclear reaction (called the r-reaction) in which neutrons are accumulated on the nucleus, thereby producing heavier elements.

*If* there was a meteor, it was in the nebula after the supernova and was part of the general collapse of that part of the cloud. The Earth formed by the collision of *millions* of small pieces of rock, just like the other planets and just like what we see happening in other systems today.

Heh. Why are you asking me about gold synthesization? Ask jonathan. My thinking was supernova and now we have neutron star collision. Thus, we're in agreement and thanks for r-reaction.

 

[james bond]

If it was 'timeless', in what sense was it 'before'? The word 'before' requires time.



Standard General Relativity, upon which BB is based, has time starting at the BB and *nothing* before: the term 'before' simply doesn't apply because there isn't time.

With quantum 'corrections', it seems much more likely that time is infinite into the past as well as eithe ranother contracting universe or a multiverse of some sort.



I have no idea what 'immaterial for BBT proponents' could possible mean.

It is a significant leap to assume a singularity is 'all-powerful' in any conventional sense.

The question of whether a creator has to be 'all-powerful' is yet another leap that is often taken.

I don't understand your question. You gave the answer which is timeless. The word before describes a state before time began. It's nitpicking. A descriptive term for this is timeless. It's nitpicking.

Your statement sounds contradictory from your first one. There was no time, so you can't go infinitely into the past as there was no past. If I understand you correctly, then quantum started up after the BB. What about space? Did spacetime and quantum started up after the BB?

That's what Hawking said.

As for the rest, it's not clear what you mean. By immaterial, the question is in regard to the single point and what it was comprised of. The energy started inside, not outside.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't understand your question. You gave the answer which is timeless. The word before describes a state before time began. It's nitpicking. A descriptive term for this is timeless. It's nitpicking.

No, it is meaningless. There can be no 'before time began'. The very word 'before' requires time. There can be 'outside of time', but I suspect that is thought of as different.

Your statement sounds contradictory from your first one. There was no time, so you can't go infinitely into the past as there was no past. If I understand you correctly, then quantum started up after the BB. What about space? Did spacetime and quantum started up after the BB?

The best answer is that we do not know.

If General Relativity is correct, there *is* no time or space before the BB because there *is* no 'before the BB'.

If, on the other hand, General Relativity need Quantum corrections (which seems likely), it is possible that time *does* go back before the BB in a contracting universe or in a multiverse.

There are two models here and we don't know which, if either, is correct. We just don't have the evidence to figure that out.

That's what Hawking said.

As for the rest, it's not clear what you mean. By immaterial, the question is in regard to the single point and what it was comprised of. The energy started inside, not outside.

Everything is material here. Whether it was a single point is at issue.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The important thing to remember is at the beginning, God created time, space and matter all of which is described in detail in the Bible (and while the Bible isn't a science book, science backs up the Bible).

A lot of scientists and scientifically literate lay people disagree with you.

So do the Christians that are busy trying to discredit science. Likewise with those trying to get creationism into public school curricula and to divert public funds to Christian schools that teach it. They all seem to recognize that science contradicts their faith based beliefs, which they understand they need to promote to children. Getting them once critical thinking skills have developed - one consequence of studying science - is too late.

This is from Barna, "an evangelical Christian polling firm based in Ventura, California":

"Reason #3 – Churches come across as antagonistic to science. One of the reasons young adults feel disconnected from church or from faith is the tension they feel between Christianity and science. The most common of the perceptions in this arena is “Christians are too confident they know all the answers” (35%). Three out of ten young adults with a Christian background feel that “churches are out of step with the scientific world we live in” (29%). Another one-quarter embrace the perception that “Christianity is anti-science” (25%). And nearly the same proportion (23%) said they have “been turned off by the creation-versus-evolution debate.” Furthermore, the research shows that many science-minded young Christians are struggling to find ways of staying faithful to their beliefs and to their professional calling in science-related industries."

As for the detailed scientific description you say exists in the Bible, most of the detail in the Bible is incorrect, and most of the correct detail omitted. Would you like to review that? It's been done recently somewhere on RF - perhaps this thread. You'll see two lists: The mistakes in the text of the Genesis creation story, and the list of things it failed to mention.

That's not really necessary, is it? You've already seen all of that, correct?

 

[james bond]

No, it is meaningless. There can be no 'before time began'. The very word 'before' requires time. There can be 'outside of time', but I suspect that is thought of as different.



The best answer is that we do not know.

If General Relativity is correct, there *is* no time or space before the BB because there *is* no 'before the BB'.

If, on the other hand, General Relativity need Quantum corrections (which seems likely), it is possible that time *does* go back before the BB in a contracting universe or in a multiverse.

There are two models here and we don't know which, if either, is correct. We just don't have the evidence to figure that out.



Everything is material here. Whether it was a single point is at issue.

Ha ha. Meaningless is a judgment/opinion in this case. I think the correct term is moot. Why not try something more descriptive? The state before time began is described as "timeless (time isn't even zero)." The description for the state before space began is described as spaceless. The state before matter appeared is described as immaterial. Thus, the one theory to describe it all starting is God and creation as the cause. This means that events can start happening and matter can interact. Why don't the atheist scientists here read this to help them square away their hypothesis -- http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf . I just found it myself, and it was a best seller, too, and I don't think it has been reviewed as racist . Furthermore, you're contradicting yourself since you brought up negative time, i.e. one can't have negative time if you start at zero. One can't travel back in time but in their mind and historical records.

e=mc2. If there was energy, then there was mass. I think that's what leibowitz was getting at. So, you agreed that there was matter. Then where did the matter come from get all its energy? That's got to be explained in Hawking's book.

What two models are you referring to?

Also, I was right about the ship and speed of light using Einstein's relativity. It's giving me more confidence for my understanding of multidimensions. What did you get out of watching those 3rd, 4th and Flatland dimension vids? How well do you understand the 3rd dimension? Do you think it's all material when it's all in your mind? That we live in the Matrix world?

 

[james bond]

A lot of scientists and scientifically literate lay people disagree with you.

So do the Christians that are busy trying to discredit science. Likewise with those trying to get creationism into public school curricula and to divert public funds to Christian schools that teach it. They all seem to recognize that science contradicts their faith based beliefs, which they understand they need to promote to children. Getting them once critical thinking skills have developed - one consequence of studying science - is too late.

This is from Barna, "an evangelical Christian polling firm based in Ventura, California":

"Reason #3 – Churches come across as antagonistic to science. One of the reasons young adults feel disconnected from church or from faith is the tension they feel between Christianity and science. The most common of the perceptions in this arena is “Christians are too confident they know all the answers” (35%). Three out of ten young adults with a Christian background feel that “churches are out of step with the scientific world we live in” (29%). Another one-quarter embrace the perception that “Christianity is anti-science” (25%). And nearly the same proportion (23%) said they have “been turned off by the creation-versus-evolution debate.” Furthermore, the research shows that many science-minded young Christians are struggling to find ways of staying faithful to their beliefs and to their professional calling in science-related industries."

As for the detailed scientific description you say exists in the Bible, most of the detail in the Bible is incorrect, and most of the correct detail omitted. Would you like to review that? It's been done recently somewhere on RF - perhaps this thread. You'll see two lists: The mistakes in the text of the Genesis creation story, and the list of things it failed to mention.

That's not really necessary, is it? You've already seen all of that, correct?

Boy, are you wrong. Atheists are wrong again. Creation science is promoting good science instead of make believe science. This is what science is -- about disagreement. Creationism is being taught in fourteen states now and should be able to expand to all fifty without having to resort to the Bible or what's illegal due to it being religion. A creator is the theory of everything. So far, the only difference I see between Hawking and creation is the immaterial (unseen Creator) vs material (invisible all-powerful particles).

 

[Polymath257]

What two models are you referring to?

One where time has a beginning and one where time does not.

Also, I was right about the ship and speed of light using Einstein's relativity. It's giving me more confidence for my understanding of multidimensions. What did you get out of watching those 3rd, 4th and Flatland dimension vids? How well do you understand the 3rd dimension? Do you think it's all material when it's all in your mind? That we live in the Matrix world?

The Flatland vids are standard fare. It is common in math to deal with higher dimensional situations. It turns out that dimensions 1 and 2 are easiest, with dimensional 5 and above the next easiest. Then, 4D and finally 3D in order of difficulty.

Your last 2 questions assume things I don't.

 

[james bond]

One where time has a beginning and one where time does not.



The Flatland vids are standard fare. It is common in math to deal with higher dimensional situations. It turns out that dimensions 1 and 2 are easiest, with dimensional 5 and above the next easiest. Then, 4D and finally 3D in order of difficulty.

Your last 2 questions assume things I don't.

Last point first. The vids showed that the 3D world is all in your mind. Thus, what we perceive as our 3D world is not material. All we have is a 2D picture that we manip with our God given eyes and mind. Who knows what else we manip? Theoretically, we live in a Matrix world. It's how 2D people can recognize 2D shapes and people in their world. If more theoretical worlds exist outside of our own, then there isn't a place where God isn't.

The only two models I am familiar with is BBT and creation. Maybe there are other theories, but these are the two big ones. The tiny point Hawking is referring to is the black hole and it's black hole cosmology. What you got right is that's considered material in his theory. Creation science has white hole cosmolgy. Time started at that point. Maybe we should drop the time and 4D discussion because we're not getting anywhere.

 

[Sapiens]

Boy, are you wrong. Atheists are wrong again. Creation science is promoting good science instead of make believe science. This is what science is -- about disagreement. Creationism is being taught in fourteen states now and should be able to expand to all fifty without having to resort to the Bible or what's illegal due to it being religion. A creator is the theory of everything. So far, the only difference I see between Hawking and creation is the immaterial (unseen Creator) vs material (invisible all-powerful particles).

Actually, creationism can, and is, taught in private schools in every state in the nation. There is no prohibition against teaching children abject foolishness, as long as it is not done with public funds. Every case that has been tried in court to remove creationist claptrap from the public classroom has resulted in overwhelming wins for those championing modern science against bronze age mythology dressed up as creation (so-called) "science." In point of fact there are no states that direct permit the teaching of creationism in public schools.

The Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008 allows teachers to use “supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner,” specifically theories regarding “evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning”—in effect, allowing creationist material inside classroom on a teacher by teacher basis creating a situation where each teacher has been detected and have their lies dealt with individually. It’s no coincidence that the Discovery Institute, a creationist think tank that provides such “supplemental textbooks,” and helped to write the bill, which the American Association for the Advancement of Science described as an “assault against scientific integrity.”
A 2012 state law in Tennessee, like Louisiana's, permits public school teachers to teach the “scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses” of theories that can “cause controversy,” specifically citing evolution, global warming, and cloning, thereby providing legal cover for individual teachers who want to put forward creationist pseudoscience.

Currently Tennessee and Louisiana are the only states openly operating in violation of the U.S. Constitution and I am sure that will be rectified in the near future. While those schools are permitted to teach creationism, it is unclear how many are actually teaching it.

Texas' largest charter program, Responsive Ed, receives $82 million in taxpayer money each year, but that hasn’t stopped its schools from adopting a creationist curriculum that seriously misrepresents the science of evolution. These materials wrongly portray the fossil record and the age of Earth as scientifically controversial, assert that there is a lack of “transitional fossils,” and claim evolution is untestable. See: Texas Public Charter Schools Are Teaching Creationism

I am aware of significant efforts to put an end, through the courts, to the abuses of the above three states.

The status of other states that have opened a backdoor to permit a trickle of funding to flow to the fools follows:

Arizona: As many as 15 schools that teach creationism may be participating in the state’s tax credit scholarship program for disabled children or children attending underperforming schools. (Arizona has not released a list of private schools that have received students on this scholarship.)

Arkansas: Responsive Education Solutions operates two campuses in Arkansas that use creationist curricula like Texas.

Colorado: At least eight private schools in Douglas County teach creationism while receiving funds through the Douglas County Scholarship Program.

Florida: At least 164 schools teach creationism while participating in the state’s tax credit scholarship programs for disabled children and children from low-income families.

Georgia: At least 34 schools teach creationism while participating in the state’s tax credit scholarship program for disabled children.

Indiana: At least 37 schools teach creationism while participating in the state’s voucher program for children from low-income families.

Ohio: At least 20 schools teach creationism while participating in a tax credit scholarship program for children in underperforming public schools.

Oklahoma: At least five schools teach creationism while participating in a tax credit scholarship program for disabled children.

Utah: At least five schools teach creationism while participating in a tax-credit scholarship program for disabled children.

Washington, D.C.: At least three schools teach creationism while participating in a tax-credit scholarship program for children from low-income families.

Wisconsin: At least 15 schools teach creationism while participating in a Milwaukee or Racine voucher programs.

The Republicans in all these states would do well to heed Bobby Jindal's advice, "We need to stop being the stupid party."

(with thanks to the Slate)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

A lot of scientists and scientifically literate lay people disagree with you.

So do the Christians that are busy trying to discredit science. Likewise with those trying to get creationism into public school curricula and to divert public funds to Christian schools that teach it. They all seem to recognize that science contradicts their faith based beliefs, which they understand they need to promote to children. Getting them once critical thinking skills have developed - one consequence of studying science - is too late.

This is from Barna, "an evangelical Christian polling firm based in Ventura, California":

"Reason #3 – Churches come across as antagonistic to science. One of the reasons young adults feel disconnected from church or from faith is the tension they feel between Christianity and science. The most common of the perceptions in this arena is “Christians are too confident they know all the answers” (35%). Three out of ten young adults with a Christian background feel that “churches are out of step with the scientific world we live in” (29%). Another one-quarter embrace the perception that “Christianity is anti-science” (25%). And nearly the same proportion (23%) said they have “been turned off by the creation-versus-evolution debate.” Furthermore, the research shows that many science-minded young Christians are struggling to find ways of staying faithful to their beliefs and to their professional calling in science-related industries."

As for the detailed scientific description you say exists in the Bible, most of the detail in the Bible is incorrect, and most of the correct detail omitted. Would you like to review that? It's been done recently somewhere on RF - perhaps this thread. You'll see two lists: The mistakes in the text of the Genesis creation story, and the list of things it failed to mention.

That's not really necessary, is it? You've already seen all of that, correct?

Boy, are you wrong. Atheists are wrong again. Creation science is promoting good science instead of make believe science. This is what science is -- about disagreement.

Christian creationism is no more scientific than Viking creationism. Science involves studying the world, not mythopoeia.

Creationism is being taught in fourteen states now and should be able to expand to all fifty without having to resort to the Bible or what's illegal due to it being religion.

Irrelevant to the discussion. You said that the Bible and science were compatible. I disagreed and offered to share support for the claim if you disagreed. The above was your reply.

A creator is the theory of everything. So far, the only difference I see between Hawking and creation is the immaterial (unseen Creator) vs material (invisible all-powerful particles).

Hawking? Still irrelevant. What difference does he make to whether science supports biblical creation?

Is there any reason you ignored the two questions at the end?

Do you know what your role in a discussion is? You don't seem to be interacting, just acting. It ceases to be a discussion under those circumstances. It's just you.

 

[Thief]

There is no God to create either. But motion and thereby time exist whether humans are around or not.

Someone had to be first

there is a God