Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[pearl]

I'll stick with what Hawking is saying and has done.

Hawking may be an atheist, however;

Hawking is a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences – which includes 80 of the most brilliant scientists in the world – and he was in Vatican City for the group’s annual meeting.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/why-famed-atheist-stephen-hawking-is-on-a-pontifical-academy-62293/

He relates in one of his books that John Paul II warned not to investigate time before the BB, however that was Hawking's area.

 

[leibowde84]

The other weird part about you besides putting the material over the immaterial is that you keep stating that I am making "claims" while we're just having a discussion in order how we see our 3D world and compare it to the 4D world. All this while you conveniently ignore and do attempt to answer the questions and points I make. I'll assume you do not have the answers like most of the internet atheists. At least, Polymath257 and jonathan180iq had their own theories.

Regardless, the truth is the brain does not see objects as 3D. To truly see 3D objects, one has to has to have the 4th dimensional view. The mind/brain automatically tries to do this by adding depth, but this is not a true 3D representation. It's one so we can understand it and help guide ourselves in our world.

The meeting of the 4th dimension with the 3rd happens when we theoretically fold the dimension, so one can traverse across spacetime. This can be shown using virtual reality software such as that of a the way a hypercube would act in the 4th dimension while it is a cube in the 3rd dimension. Normally, we calling this a mapping of the 4D object into our 3D world and can be seen as a topographical map. When we mapped the 3D world into 2D, we can see it as a regular map. With the 4D topographical map, it shows objects where the objects that are in the distant future such as the Pillars of Creation.

As with a 2D map of our world, if we did not have boats, then we would not be able to lands beyond the ocean. This is what we are facing now with the Pillars of Creation. It is impossible to get there from where we stand. The best we can do is have the view of a person watching a train pass by from the distance. Once we get into a ship that can travel fast near the speed of light, then we can view the Pillars of Creation as an object that we can get to. Careful calculations would need to be made of it's location or else we could overshoot it and be lost in space. I don't think it's the 4D vs 3D views that stands in the way between the calculations of creation scientists and those of the atheist scientists. I think how we can view the Pillars of Creation on our map at a location in future spacetime that can be decided upon. What will be different is our calculation on how to reach it since we view the universe differently. One is unbounded while the other is bounded. This was the other point I was trying to make.

I'm sorry. What question(s) would you like me to answer?

 

[viole]

Hawking may be an atheist, however;

Hawking is a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences – which includes 80 of the most brilliant scientists in the world – and he was in Vatican City for the group’s annual meeting.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/why-famed-atheist-stephen-hawking-is-on-a-pontifical-academy-62293/

He relates in one of his books that John Paul II warned not to investigate time before the BB, however that was Hawking's area.

Why did JP II warn him, in your opinion?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Blastcat]

US paleoanthropologist, Donald Johanson, who found Lucy (named after Beatles song Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds or LSD; the man was high), now claims that he's found a werewolf. At least, it's more complete than before. He wants to keep it away from the minimum wage native diggers because they'll be spooked. Reporters asked him in an impromptu gathering shortly after the find what would Darwin think if he were alive today. He said that it could be the start of the alpha male, a new species of male humans.

please. could you get a source for that werewolf claim?

 

[pearl]

Why did JP II warn him, in your opinion?

According to Hawking,
Hawking, in his book A Brief History of Time, states on page 120 that at a 1981 Vatican conference on cosmology Pope John Paul II said that "it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the Big Bang, but we should not inquire into the Big Bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God."

However there is some discrepancy as to what JP actually said in his address to the conference;

Here is what the pope actually said: "Every scientific hypothesis about the origin of the world, such as the one that says that there is a basic atom from which the whole of the physical universe is derived, leaves unanswered the problem concerning the beginning of the universe. By itself science cannot resolve such a question: it requires human knowledge which rises above the physical, the astrophysical, what we call the metaphysical; what is required above all is the knowledge which comes from the revelation of God."

I assume what is meant there is a point where science crosses over to theology. Science may claim a creator God was not necessary, but it may not claim non existence.

 

[leibowde84]

US paleoanthropologist, Donald Johanson, who found Lucy (named after Beatles song Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds or LSD; the man was high)

This might be the dumbest claim I've ever seen. My dad, for example, is probably the biggest Beatles fan I know and he has never once even smoked pot in his entire life.

 

[james bond]

I'm sorry. What question(s) would you like me to answer?

#3537
how do you really know what is real? Are we just being fed images of our world like in the Matrix or what we experience of this world through our mind all there is?.

This might be the dumbest claim I've ever seen. My dad, for example, is probably the biggest Beatles fan I know and he has never once even smoked pot in his entire life.

Is your dad Donald Johanson?

Again with "claims." I guess we can't just discuss things like men. It appears the discussion starts from an argument in your mind. It's like we start off in a Mexican Standoff, ready to draw our guns and back away slowly.

 

[james bond]

Black holes have been verified to exist. Here's a NASA video about the one at the center of the Milky Way:

Milky Way's Supermassive Black Hole Caught Eating..Something | Video

You realize that your articles are attepts to *simulate* black holes in the lab, right? And that they are attempting to detect what is known as Hawking radiation from these simulations? They are NOT about *actual* black holes.

You didn't read the link about simulated black holes and the various answers given. There was a disagreement right off the bat. The existence of black holes has not been peer-reviewed so it does not exist (and Hawking has to await his Nobel Prize).

You should know this because atheist scientists usually do not peer-review creation scientists work, and thus, God doesn't exist.

 

[james bond]

According to Hawking,
Hawking, in his book A Brief History of Time, states on page 120 that at a 1981 Vatican conference on cosmology Pope John Paul II said that "it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the Big Bang, but we should not inquire into the Big Bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God."

However there is some discrepancy as to what JP actually said in his address to the conference;

Here is what the pope actually said: "Every scientific hypothesis about the origin of the world, such as the one that says that there is a basic atom from which the whole of the physical universe is derived, leaves unanswered the problem concerning the beginning of the universe. By itself science cannot resolve such a question: it requires human knowledge which rises above the physical, the astrophysical, what we call the metaphysical; what is required above all is the knowledge which comes from the revelation of God."

I assume what is meant there is a point where science crosses over to theology. Science may claim a creator God was not necessary, but it may not claim non existence.

I didn't know this. I just felt God pulling me more to investigate Hawking, so I ended up reading ABHOT 1 and 2. Did you see Hawking's youtube about the gaseous single point and statement that it started from inside and not outside? The first microseconds end up violating the law of physics such a speed of light.

 

[Polymath257]

You didn't read the link about simulated black holes and the various answers given. There was a disagreement right off the bat. The existence of black holes has not been peer-reviewed so it does not exist (and Hawking has to await his Nobel Prize).

You should know this because atheist scientists usually do not peer-review creation scientists work, and thus, God doesn't exist.

I am familiar with the simulation. It was a 'sonic' black hole created in the lab as a simulation. The basic equations for that situation in sound and the proposed equations for black holes are the same.

The simulation produced the analog of Hawking radiation.

This *simulation* has not been peer-reviewed (as of the last I saw). The existence of black holes has.

 

[Polymath257]

I didn't know this. I just felt God pulling me more to investigate Hawking, so I ended up reading ABHOT 1 and 2. Did you see Hawking's youtube about the gaseous single point and statement that it started from inside and not outside? The first microseconds end up violating the law of physics such a speed of light.

No, they do NOT violate the laws of physics. The expansion of space is 'faster than light', but that does NOT violate the laws of physics which state that nothing can go through space at faster than the speed of light.

 

[james bond]

please. could you get a source for that werewolf claim?

Ha ha. I can't my other link I posted earlier in this thread. The photo's not real, but from:

Episode 904- Werewolf

 

[james bond]

I am familiar with the simulation. It was a 'sonic' black hole created in the lab as a simulation. The basic equations for that situation in sound and the proposed equations for black holes are the same.

The simulation produced the analog of Hawking radiation.

This *simulation* has not been peer-reviewed (as of the last I saw). The existence of black holes has.

I'm aware that it was a sonic simulation, but my peer-review is not of that. I'm referring to the peer-review of black holes.

 

[pearl]

I just felt God pulling me more to investigate Hawking

Have you seen these?

https://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_hawking_asks_big_questions_about_the_universe

 

[leibowde84]

#3537
how do you really know what is real? Are we just being fed images of our world like in the Matrix or what we experience of this world through our mind all there is?.

We don't know for sure. But, it isn't a worthwhile question. If we get hung up on the matrix scenario, nothing else matters ... we can't get anywhere. So, while it is a possibility I guess, it isn't worth considering as an option.

Is your dad Donald Johanson?

No.

Again with "claims." I guess we can't just discuss things like men. It appears the discussion starts from an argument in your mind. It's like we start off in a Mexican Standoff, ready to draw our guns and back away slowly.

You said he was high. That is a claim.

claim
klām/
verb

1. state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
   "he claimed that he came from a wealthy, educated family"
   synonyms: assert, declare, profess, maintain, state, hold, affirm, avow; More

noun

1. an assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt.

 

[james bond]

Why did JP II warn him, in your opinion?

Ciao

- viole

This is a great question, viole. I don't agree with what JP said, but since he's the Pope he has to say something. I suppose it's difficult for non-believers to understand, but my complaint is part due to scientific principles, but more religious ones. Religious persons should not stand in the way since it would be standing in the way of religious freedom for atheists. It's not like in the past.

 

[james bond]

We don't know for sure. But, it isn't a worthwhile question. If we get hung up on the matrix scenario, nothing else matters ... we can't get anywhere. So, while it is a possibility I guess, it isn't worth considering as an option.

No.
You said he was high. That is a claim.

claim
klām/
verb

1. state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
   "he claimed that he came from a wealthy, educated family"
   synonyms: assert, declare, profess, maintain, state, hold, affirm, avow; More

noun

1. an assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt.

The Matrix is important since it deals with the material and immaterial. I can't fault your belief in the brain being material since American medicine teaches the brain. Let's just say I think the mind is separate as some psychologists and religions view it as such. The big difference is when we discuss consciousness. We do have consciousness as that state when you are dreaming. There is your subconscious, conscious and unconscious minds.

We do know for sure about the Matrix. That's why I said to close one eye and try to catch a ball. Try walking around with an eye patch. The mind still adjusts based based on memory, but you can have some string a rope across the room and after you walk in it, it will be difficult to determine where it is. That was the whole point of Flatland. In your case, it's your brain fooling you.

Why don't we leave it at that because it's not much fun discussing things when you keep saying I'm making a claim and then I have to show proof or something as such. It's like we didn't get very far with the Matrix, dimension discussion or really any other topic. If you would answer my questions in the same way, then it would be different like a debate or argument.

So your dad has nothing to do with Johanson or my "claim." Big deal. Johanson was high since he named his ape Lucy. Because of PT, the USG and such I followed Carlos Casteneda and Aldous Huxley during those times. I know what kind of high he was on.

 

[leibowde84]

Johanson was high since he named his ape Lucy. Because of PT, the USG and such I followed Carlos Casteneda and Aldous Huxley during those times. I know what kind of high he was on.

Again, this is dumb. Him using the name Lucy after a beatles song in no way even remotely signifies that he was high. It is ludicrous to connect the two. And it is insulting to a man who you don't even know.

You have not provided any rational reason to think he was high on acid.

 

[james bond]

Again, this is dumb. Him using the name Lucy after a beatles song in no way even remotely signifies that he was high. It is ludicrous to connect the two. And it is insulting to a man who you don't even know.

You have not provided any rational reason to think he was high on acid.

The reason is he named it after a Beatles song that it is about an acid trip and the title itself is short for LSD. He could've just as well named it Rita after Lovely Rita, but he didn't. He picked out this song specifically because of his acid trips. Even the bones of "Lucy" isn't from "one" Australopithecus afarensis and we have no skull. There isn't enough information there and yet he thinks he found the first ape-man. If it was a man, he gave it a woman's name. Johnson went to Cal and ASU. That's as liberal as one can get on the west coast. Liberal during those time meant drug haven. In order to give his bones credibility, the LSD helped him turn it into the first ape-man and a place in history. Look at the others I mentioned such as Carlos Castaneda, Aldous Huxley and Timothy Leary. You know these people because of LSD (albeit Huxley has his writings). Johanson may as well be included in the list if he wrote how LSD helped him discover Lucy, his God substitute. There you go. What have you got? Well, you're the one that made the claim, Mr. Bond, and I do not know much else. I don't even own the album.

 

[james bond]

So instead of my showing off my knowledge, and Polymath257 not understand superior knowledge anyway, why don't we apply the objects we've been discussing such as black holes, singularity, event horizon, firewall and more to what's going on in science, so we can move this thread and discussion forward. No need to bore people like Polymath257. Actually, I'm on Hawking's side in this argument even though some of his thoughts conflict with mine.

Argument against Stephen Hawking's theory of black holes, quantum mechanics and radiation