Re: funny creationsist


AC wrote:
On 27 Feb 2006 14:16:22 -0800,
Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Jack Dominey wrote:
In <1139527130.010736.51250@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Jim Spaza"
<spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Ye Old One wrote:
On 30 Jan 2006 18:31:19 -0800, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:
On 22 Jan 2006 13:07:19 -0800, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

<snip>

Show me the evidence that it all "popped" into existence as opposed to
being created.

You keep misrepresenting the actual science concerning the origin of
the universe. Here's a better representation of what we know:

"The standard Big Bang model is singular at the time of the Big Bang,
t = 0. This means that one cannot even define time, since spacetime is
singular. In some models like the chaotic or perpetual inflation
favored by Linde, the Big Bang is just one of many inflating bubbles
in a spacetime foam. But there is no possibility of getting
information from outside our own one bubble. Thus I conclude that:
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBB

This is one guy's version, but it agrees with everything else I've
read on the subject.

Show me something that came into existence from nothingness and without
a cause within the past thousand years.

Heck, show me ANYTHING in this universe which just came into existence
between now and 15 billion years ago?

Why? What would it demonstrate? Specifically, how would a
demonstration of an occurence *within* the universe say anything about
the origin *of* the universe?

Well, it would demonstrate in real terms that this particle creation
theory is accurate. How strange that abiogenesis and particle creation
never seem to occur nowadays when we can see it for ourselves.


You cannot. You know of nothing which came from nothingness. You know
of nothing which began to exist without a cause.

*In* the universe. Above the quantum level.

To believe in that seems to require so much...faith.


This whole made-up theory of quantum particles popping in and out of
existence would be laughable if it were ever mentioned in a religious
text. But, because it is talked about in the scientific community,
well, then...it must be true. Whatever.

Why are you so quick to dismiss what astronomers and physicists say?

Honestly? Because they seem to make up things as they go along,
painting themselves into a corner here and there and creating
dimensions, changing physics, and creating wild theories to get
themselves out.

Oh for goodness sake, Jim. This is cutting edge, highly speculative stuff.
Even the most vocal adherents admit that there's a lot of conjecture, and
problems. No one is saying that these models are actually so. Quit trying
to tar researchers with the that brush. It's dishonest.

I am not trying to tar anyone. It simply bothers me that sane, logical
people adhere to rather speculative theories such as particles popping
in and out of this world, but then heavily critique , if not dismiss,
the Bible, Christianity, and God's existence in general because there
is no way to test such things. It would be different if the same
amount of incredulity in religious matters were equally applied to
unsupported theories of nature.



As an example, take the Big Bang theory. It's not necessarily a
ridiculous theoryl. But, look what happened when the implications of
the theory were examined.

That the Universe was once very small and very dense is pointed to by the
evidence.


Shoving this entire universe including time and space into a
singularity demanded such a powerful, controlled initial cause that
scientists gave up pretending that normal physics and chemistry still
applied. They couldn't look to any theological answer and sought out a
purely naturalistic, undesigned cause.

And again we see you misrepresenting what you don't understand. It's
getting tiring.

Well, isn't that what the Big Bang theory states?

1) Only naturalistic causes and processes are considered. That rules
out any Supreme Being even being considered.

2) If the expansion of the universe is reverse-engineered to t=0, then
the cosmos can be logically inferred to have been a singularity. But,
current laws of physics and chemistry rule out such a situation from
being possible. Thus, there must have been a different set of laws at
work at t=0 (and maybe just after).

3) What kind of power or system could ever create this singularity in
the first place? Unknown. And really not part of the theory anyway.
Initial cause is not considered. This, of course, brings up a problem
as the Big Bang theory would have to eventually hold up under the
scrutiny of investigating an initial cause. No theory is complete
without asking how the result came about.



They got themselves out of the corner into which they painted
themselves by merely stating that the normal laws of time, space,
physics, and chemistry don't apply in a singularity. How convenient.

A singularity in physics, Jim, is by definition a place where the laws as we
understand them don't apply. It's not convenience, and is in fact a source
of great frustration for physicists.

I understand. But, do scientists ask themselves if a singularity CAN
exist? And not just presume that it can because of the logical
outworking of their initial theory.


You are essentially invoking the conspiracy theory, that scientists are all
anti-God liars. I do hope you clarify here, and even demonstrate some
knowledge of inflationary cosmology, rather than just poo-pooing things you
clearly don't understand.

I am NOT saying that any scientist is anti-God. I am saying that they
have dismissed a very real possibility, albeit theological in nature,
when they force their theories to abide entirely in the natural world.
Of course, this brings up the counter-argument which states that
science cannot handle anything outside of the natural world. But,
there is a difference between a cause which is supernatural in design
but verifiably evident in nature versus a supernatural cause which
leaves zero fingerprints.



The bit about virtual particles comes out of quantum mechanics - the
theory that underlies a good bit of the computers we're using.

Hmmm...I always thought that it had to do with simple electron flow,
resistance, and switches.

Then I'm afraid you have a good deal to learn on that count.



The idea that the origin of the visible universe is a quantum
fluctuation is speculative, as anyone would tell you. While it
doesn't contradict any of the things we know about the universe (as
far as I know), it does not appear to be testable, so it will remain a
speculation with no particular support until someone does test it.

Thank you for being open about its testability. You one of the few
intellectually honest people that have replied to me.

That's B.S. Jim. It's been explained to you before, and in fact, if you
actually read some books by researchers on the subject, rather than going
for your cartoon version, you would find that those speculating admit that
there are enormous gaps.



<snip>

Sure. A scientist using equipment and controlled conditions can
eliminate every piece of pre-DNA matter except the two amino acids that
he desires and then force them to combine. Weird that no one has been
able to do that so far.

Your caricature of abiogenesis research and theories is worse than
your caricature of early cosmology. Do try to learn a little about
the subject you want to criticize.

Then you tell me...what was the exact process that brought organic
material together, changed them into something more complex, and caused
the first lifeform to come into being?

Nobody knows. There are some tantalizing clues/


At some point, precursors aside, you had to have more than one amino
acid, right? If DNA was used back then, then proteins were in use back
then. And what are proteins made of?

You really should go and read some literature on the subject. DNA most
certainly would not have been around early on.

Then if not DNA or some RNA variant, by what material did the process
of reproduction (including mutation) of the first thousand or so
lifeforms occur?


--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@xxxxxxxxxxx

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: funny creationsist
    ... demonstration of an occurence *within* the universe say anything about ... physics gets tossed out the door at the moment of the Big Bang or beyond the ... then please inform all of those science text manufacturers to ... As with all things in science, Jim, it is dependent upon our ability to test ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: funny creationsist
    ... show me ANYTHING in this universe which just came into existence ... scientists gave up pretending that normal physics and chemistry still ... the cosmos can be logically inferred to have been a singularity. ... there must have been a different set of laws at ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: CMBR and neutron stars
    ... > happens to you crossing the event horizon provided that you ... Universe ingests more of the outer. ... >>>No, of course not, at least not a physical singularity. ... Sounds like Steve Willner's "new physics". ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: funny creationsist
    ... show me ANYTHING in this universe which just came into existence ... Oh for goodness sake, Jim. ... scientists gave up pretending that normal physics and chemistry still ... and chemistry don't apply in a singularity. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
    ... Jim Spaza wrote: ... way to understand certain fundemental aspects of the Universe. ... That's like an atheist declaring that there is no God because he has ... create the the Big Bang singularity. ...
    (talk.origins)