Yes, but how did it all get started in the first place?

[footprints]

You said it was mathematically impossible but nothing else, so all you have right now is a random statement with nothing to back it up. After being asked for you to provide evidence, you haven't given sufficient evidence and so it's becoming easier to conclude that your statement is null and void. So, I'll ask again, where is your evidence? Either concede you have none (which I'm beginning to think) or give evidence but don't keep dragging your statement out without giving an argument for it.



:biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh:Oh come on, now you're asking someone else to give evidence for the same thing you have to give evidence for and neither of you have given evidence thus far. Is this now becoming a group effort for you, Amil and maybe more creationists to show how it's mathematically impossible?

No further explanation is needed, however if you would like to put down a mathematical formula for creating something from nothing, please be my guest, I am sure science would be extremely interested.:angel2:

Alernately, if you would like to put down a formula which shows that something can exist without ever having been created or formed, I am sure science would be extremely interested in that too.:angel2:

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

No further explanation is needed, however if you would like to put down a mathematical formula for creating something from nothing, please be my guest, I am sure science would be extremely interested.:angel2:

Alernately, if you would like to put down a formula which shows that something can exist without ever having been created or formed, I am sure science would be extremely interested in that too.:angel2:

Haha, you were the one who asserted the mathematical formula or statement shows that the given issue is mathematically impossible, not me. It's your job to show the proof, not mine. It's a little thing called burden of proof, which for this thread so far you've kindly ignored. Otherwise, your statement is dismissed as it has no value and is unseperable from a random, horse-**** filled statement. Your call: give your burden of proof or quit doddling and admit you have no evidence for your statement. Given the length as to which you've doddled, I'm going with the second option. As smart as you may be, your word with no evidence is useless, meaningless, nothing, etc... . Your word without evidence isn't law nor is it an argument fit for a debate. I'm waiting for your burden of proof :sleep:.

Oh, and quit trying to pass the buck off, first your tried it to Amill, then to me. Each time you do so, you weaken your stance even more than it already is. I cant make it any simpler than that.

 

[McBell]

Haha, you were the one who asserted the mathematical formula or statement shows that the given issue is mathematically impossible, not me. It's your job to show the proof, not mine. It's a little thing called burden of proof, which for this thread so far you've kindly ignored. Otherwise, your statement is dismissed as it has no value and is unseperable from a random, horse-**** filled statement. Your call: give your burden of proof or quit doddling and admit you have no evidence for your statement. Given the length as to which you've doddled, I'm going with the second option. As smart as you may be, your word with no evidence is useless, meaningless, nothing, etc... . Your word without evidence isn't law nor is it an argument fit for a debate. I'm waiting for your burden of proof :sleep:.

Oh, and quit trying to pass the buck off, first your tried it to Amill, then to me. Each time you do so, you weaken your stance even more than it already is. I cant make it any simpler than that.

I seriously hope you are not holding your breath....

 

[Xander]

Sorcery, bible, black mass, beetlebox, some guide... . Glad I'm not the only one who doesn't have the foggest idea as to what you're talking about. Can you make it, less, well, *points to the quote* that?

Yes it is a different language,a whole *new* set of label's for a whole *new* set of experiences where you are sovereign over....yourself!You decide.

For a whole new set of values brought about in the age where a man shall be judged by what he can create,not that which he can destroy.Real Value,not the merely external label's & privelages of rank & fortune.

Any clearer?

 

[Xander]

What the "Jiminy Christmas" are you talking about.......?.....

Maybe start with JOB to show that the more thing's change,the more they remain the same?You shall self identify at some stage if you are genuinely interested?

The Celt's who fought under Gaethelos as highly paid & valued mercenary rubbed shoulder's with the highest society in the greatest civilisation on earth at the time.Amid swapping idea's,dna,trading,etc,Pharoh got the idea's for a top army,the Celt's came back as something different too.Talking about Khefer,self sovereignty,Universal Law,prophet's,prophecy,a whole new language.

What in the wild world of sports were they on about?

 

[Tiapan]

Tiapan, you should have already anticipated this question, where did the "hot quark soup," come from?

Where did the first matter particles come from?

The end resultant of your scenario is something was created from nothing. A total impossibility by todays knowledge. The other resultant which could be derived is that matter has always existed. Another total impossibility by todays knowledge that something can exist without ever having been created or formed.

No.
That's the point I am trying to make.
The matter and energy did not come from nowhere and nothingness.
My hypothesis is that the angular momentum of the current universe is possible evidence that it was inherited from a previous collapsing real universe.
Where the law of conservation of angular momentum is obeyed during the transition through the big crunch-bang process.
So nothing was created, it was always there and always will be.
It simply transitions cyclically through a big bang phenomena momentarily as the old universe finalizes its contraction and then a new universe bursts forth, all made of matter and energy from the previous universe.
It was never created, just reduced to quarks and then reassembled as subatomic particles while cooling during the expansion stage of the next "Big Bang" eventually forming the next universe eg our current one.

So I offer no magic pulling universe sized rabbits from small top hats, but instead offer an alternative solution, purely based on the laws of natural physics, giving me a valid mechanism to explain the evidence observed about our early universe, its origin and what was there prior.
These are my ideas and as such may well be wrong or require adjustment, as new evidence is presented, but to me, unlike mythology, it makes sense.
Often the simplest solution is the correct one.

Cheers

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

I seriously hope you are not holding your breath....

If I were I'd be dead long ago. Heck, I might even have made the world record for holding my breath.

Yes it is a different language,a whole *new* set of label's for a whole *new* set of experiences where you are sovereign over....yourself!You decide.

For a whole new set of values brought about in the age where a man shall be judged by what he can create,not that which he can destroy.Real Value,not the merely external label's & privelages of rank & fortune.

Any clearer?

I understand it now, thank you.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

No.
That's the point I am trying to make.
The matter and energy did not come from nowhere and nothingness.
My hypothesis is that the angular momentum of the current universe is possible evidence that it was inherited from a previous collapsing real universe.
Where the law of conservation of angular momentum is obeyed during the transition through the big crunch-bang process.
So nothing was created, it was always there and always will be.
It simply transitions cyclically through a big bang phenomena momentarily as the old universe finalizes its contraction and then a new universe bursts forth, all made of matter and energy from the previous universe.
It was never created, just reduced to quarks and then reassembled as subatomic particles while cooling during the expansion stage of the next "Big Bang" eventually forming the next universe eg our current one.

So I offer no magic pulling universe sized rabbits from small top hats, but instead offer an alternative solution, purely based on the laws of natural physics, giving me a valid mechanism to explain the evidence observed about our early universe, its origin and what was there prior.
These are my ideas and as such may well be wrong or require adjustment, as new evidence is presented, but to me, unlike mythology, it makes sense.
Often the simplest solution is the correct one.

Cheers

Thanks for the info.

I was going to ask what you thought about our universe being born from another (existing) universe but then I hit the web and was watching Prof. Michio Kaku speaking on (Multiverse Theory).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rg3uNrI8tE

 

[Autodidact]

It's not the best explanation. If it were people wouldn't have a problem with it. It just don't make no sense!:beach:

If by people you mean biologists, they don't have a problem with it. Other people have a problem with it because it violates their religious beliefs, not for scientific reasons.

btw you've got a typical religionist "heads you win/tails I lose" impossible to falsify reality-denial system going on. If the consensus of Biologists accepts the theory, you allege there's a conspiracy against other theories. (which there isn't.) If it doesn't, you say the theory isn't accepted.

 

[Autodidact]

I know enough, I've read a book about it! And I know that the central claim of evolution is that an unguided physical process can account for the emergence of all biological complexity and diversity. Who's ignorant now!?

Well that's a little vague. I'd say you are.

Mmm...just as Ernst Haeckel was honest about his drawings of those emrbyos....

what does this have to do with the price of cocaine in Afghanistan?

Not all, but some. Those who teach evolution as fact when there is little to no real evidence to back their claims.

I will now prove you are a liar. Ready? Here goes, because you're about to prove to all of us that you are a liar. If I can show you the (literal) mountains of evidence that supports the ToE, will you withdraw this claim? It will take pages, at least 20 pages, and many posts, because there is so much evidence that supports the theory. I will present it, if you will accept my challenge. If not, you're obviously a liar.

And those who do not own up to findings that go against theirs.

such as what?

When key points of evolution are debated and not supported by the theory,

But they are supported. That's why they're accepted.

such as Eugenie Scott, head of the National Centre for Science who said that to change the text books would just confuse kids about the soundness of evolution as a science.

That's right, when you teach children lies as though they were truths, it's very confusing to them. That's why we shouldn't do it.

 

[footprints]

Haha, you were the one who asserted the mathematical formula or statement shows that the given issue is mathematically impossible, not me. It's your job to show the proof, not mine. It's a little thing called burden of proof, which for this thread so far you've kindly ignored. Otherwise, your statement is dismissed as it has no value and is unseperable from a random, horse-**** filled statement. Your call: give your burden of proof or quit doddling and admit you have no evidence for your statement. Given the length as to which you've doddled, I'm going with the second option. As smart as you may be, your word with no evidence is useless, meaningless, nothing, etc... . Your word without evidence isn't law nor is it an argument fit for a debate. I'm waiting for your burden of proof :sleep:.

Oh, and quit trying to pass the buck off, first your tried it to Amill, then to me. Each time you do so, you weaken your stance even more than it already is. I cant make it any simpler than that.

Amill misread and I can only assume by the non reply has learned from intelligence.

As for evidence I would suggest you start by reading Einstein, Hawking and Boulware, and for a little bit more go to Barcelo, Liberati, Visser and Sonego on thier theory of Black Stars.

By the way it isn't up to me to prove anything to you, this is something you must do for yourself but only if you want to. And of course why should I prove something when people like Einstein, Hawking, Boulware et al, have already done it for me.

 

[McBell]

And of course why should I prove something when people like Einstein, Hawking, Boulware et al, have already done it for me.

What a load of bull ****.

 

[footprints]

No.
That's the point I am trying to make.
The matter and energy did not come from nowhere and nothingness.
My hypothesis is that the angular momentum of the current universe is possible evidence that it was inherited from a previous collapsing real universe.
Where the law of conservation of angular momentum is obeyed during the transition through the big crunch-bang process.
So nothing was created, it was always there and always will be.
It simply transitions cyclically through a big bang phenomena momentarily as the old universe finalizes its contraction and then a new universe bursts forth, all made of matter and energy from the previous universe.
It was never created, just reduced to quarks and then reassembled as subatomic particles while cooling during the expansion stage of the next "Big Bang" eventually forming the next universe eg our current one.

So I offer no magic pulling universe sized rabbits from small top hats, but instead offer an alternative solution, purely based on the laws of natural physics, giving me a valid mechanism to explain the evidence observed about our early universe, its origin and what was there prior.
These are my ideas and as such may well be wrong or require adjustment, as new evidence is presented, but to me, unlike mythology, it makes sense.
Often the simplest solution is the correct one.

Cheers

Hi Tiapan,

Yes Tiapan, I gained that knowledge from my first reading of your theory and I must say I did find it plausible providing of course we have something to begin with already. Similar to Einstein, Hawking, Bekenstein et al.

So where did the previous universe come from? And the one before that, and the one before that? At the end of the day following this path as well, what you are saying is that something exists or has existed, without ever having been created or formed. And that Tiapan is rabbit out of a hat stuff, according to our current knowledge.

There is a physics in the universe which we know nothing about.

 

[footprints]

What a load of bull ****.

Thank you for your input.

 

[McBell]

Thank you for your input.

You are welcome.

I like to call it how I see it.

 

[Magic Man]

A lot of people say 'Hey, I know that evolution happens, cos look at fruit flies or viruses etc...'or 'look at the fossil record.' Never mind all that. How did it all get going in the first place? It is mathematically impossible. As that's the case, the case for evolution is pretty much closed isn't it?

Wow, I guess I missed this. I'm sure this has been corrected and gone over to death, but I'll add my two cents.

The theory of evolution says nothing at all about how life started, only what happened after life began. So, as far as the theory is concerned, it really doesn't matter whether some kind of being started life or whether it just popped out of the primordial ooze.

By the way, it's not mathematically impossible for life to have sprung up without an intelligent creator. If you want to use probabilities, the fact that I'm here typing this right now has about a 1 in 10 billion chance, if you consider all of the obstacles I had to overcome in the last 30 years, not to mention all of the obstacles my parents had to overcome and their parents, etc. You can make pretty much anything statistically impossible, if you really wanted to.

So, yes, I'd say the case for evolution is pretty much closed. It's a fact and it happened and it still happens.

 

[McBell]

The odds of something happening AFTER it has happened is always 1:1

 

[Valjean]

Hi Tiapan,

Yes Tiapan, I gained that knowledge from my first reading of your theory and I must say I did find it plausible providing of course we have something to begin with already. Similar to Einstein, Hawking, Bekenstein et al.

So where did the previous universe come from? And the one before that, and the one before that? At the end of the day following this path as well, what you are saying is that something exists or has existed, without ever having been created or formed. And that Tiapan is rabbit out of a hat stuff, according to our current knowledge.

There is a physics in the universe which we know nothing about.

One can't discuss physics in quotidian language. Real Reality must be approached mathematically, as it's entirely beyond the little, 3-D world we perceive. Words like
"before," "previous," &c -- any language relating to the time illusion, indicates a misunderstanding of the physics involved. Time is likely a misperceived dimension of an 11-dimensional multiverse. You can't treat an abstract, symbolic perception of a tiny sliver of Reality as something conceivable in 3-D consciousness.

 

[footprints]

One can't discuss physics in quotidian language. Real Reality must be approached mathematically, as it's entirely beyond the little, 3-D world we perceive. Words like
"before," "previous," &c -- any language relating to the time illusion, indicates a misunderstanding of the physics involved. Time is likely a misperceived dimension of an 11-dimensional multiverse. You can't treat an abstract, symbolic perception of a tiny sliver of Reality as something conceivable in 3-D consciousness.

Time is a relative factor which may be wrong or right. Many calculations in mathematics are based on time, if time is not right, the maths based on this time will also not be right. In this respect neither time nor mathematics have anything to do with reality, only our understanding of it.

 

[Valjean]

Wow, I guess I missed this. I'm sure this has been corrected and gone over to death, but I'll add my two cents.

The theory of evolution says nothing at all about how life started, only what happened after life began. So, as far as the theory is concerned, it really doesn't matter whether some kind of being started life or whether it just popped out of the primordial ooze.

By the way, it's not mathematically impossible for life to have sprung up without an intelligent creator. If you want to use probabilities, the fact that I'm here typing this right now has about a 1 in 10 billion chance, if you consider all of the obstacles I had to overcome in the last 30 years, not to mention all of the obstacles my parents had to overcome and their parents, etc. You can make pretty much anything statistically impossible, if you really wanted to.

So, yes, I'd say the case for evolution is pretty much closed. It's a fact and it happened and it still happens.

An "intelligent Creator" must use mechanism too, or else one's positing magic as a reasonable mechanism. Using probability to discredit Natural Selection, or any other mechanism, is absurd. The mathematical probability of any event or thing being as it is is infinitesimal -- yet there it is. Google: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5NPpoM51IQ&feature=related