PDA

View Full Version : Just who are these "CREATIONISTS" anyway?



LWW
02-18-2012, 05:13 AM
http://s3.amazonaws.com/readers/2008/08/22/0_19.jpg

Albert Einstein (http://scienceray.com/philosophy-of-science/science-and-religion-did-einstein-believe-in-god/) Probably the greatest theoretical physicist of all time.

LWW
02-18-2012, 05:16 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/Max_Planck.png/220px-Max_Planck.png

Max Planck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck#Religious_view) father of quantum theory.

LWW
02-18-2012, 05:18 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Francis_Collins_official_portrait.jpg/475px-Francis_Collins_official_portrait.jpg

Francis Sellers Collins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins) head of the National Human Genome Research Institute.

Qtec
02-18-2012, 05:26 AM
Let me shoot down your first claim so we can dispense with the others.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Albert Einstein is on record as saying that he did not believe in a personal God.</span> He said:

"It was, of course,<span style='font-size: 17pt'> a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated.</span><span style="color: #3333FF"> I wonder who by?????????</span> <span style='font-size: 26pt'>I do not believe in a personal God</span> and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."






Einstein also said:

"<span style='font-size: 23pt'>I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.</span> This is a somewhat new kind of religion. I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. <span style='font-size: 26pt'>The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."</span>


Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Einstein_believe_in_God#ixzz1mjQQWxdE
</div></div>


BAZINGA

Q

LWW
02-18-2012, 06:35 AM
And?

LWW
02-18-2012, 06:47 AM
Out of curiosity, why did you exclude these quotes from Einstein?

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books—-a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects."</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble."</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods."</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"When the solution is simple, God is answering."</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details."

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."</span>

What's that?

Like all egocentric self proclaimed atheists you are so desperate to prove yourself to be the highest level of being in existence that you will take out of context quotes and mangle their meanings in order to supply "PROOF" to your feeble POV?

But ... I already knew that.

Soflasnapper
02-18-2012, 11:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Francis_Collins_official_portrait.jpg/475px-Francis_Collins_official_portrait.jpg

Francis Sellers Collins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins) head of the National Human Genome Research Institute.
</div></div>

These claims in this thread are mainly false.

Neither Einstein nor Planck were Christians or Jews or any kind of believer in a personal God.

This guy, Collins, WAS an evangelical Christian by adult conversion, and he STILL rejects intelligent design.

At your link: Collins remains firm in his rejection of intelligent design, and for this reason was not asked to participate in the 2008 documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which tries, among other things, to draw a direct link between evolution and atheism. Walt Ruloff, a producer for the film, claimed that Collins was "toeing the party line" by rejecting intelligent design, which Collins called "just ludicrous".[43]

So, no, none of them were creationists at all, not even the one who was an actual Christian.

These men of science are more likely almost Deists, wherein a 'watchmaker' kind of God sets up the universe with the laws of nature, turns on the switch, and steps aside.

Planck in particular criticized as irrational any and all supernatural miracles, as inconsistent with the laws of nature.

LWW
02-18-2012, 12:17 PM
Why must you be so deceitful?

That Collins does not believe in the "YOUNG EARTH" hypothesis doesn't in the slightest mean that he doesn't believe in creation or a Creator.

Here's a thought ... perhaps you might read his books?

What's that?

They haven't been spoon approved?

Imagine that.

DiabloViejo
02-18-2012, 02:34 PM
An index to creationist claims with rebuttals:

An Index to Creationist Claims (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/)

Soflasnapper
02-18-2012, 02:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why must you be so deceitful?

That Collins does not believe in the "YOUNG EARTH" hypothesis doesn't in the slightest mean that he doesn't believe in creation or a Creator.

Here's a thought ... perhaps you might read his books?

What's that?

They haven't been spoon approved?

Imagine that. </div></div>

If he doesn't believe in intelligent design, he's not a creationist, either, as I understand the term.

Sounds like he believes in evolution, from the brief content I cited from your link.

Isn't creationism the antipode of evolution theory, with intelligent design the mid-point, roughly?

LWW
02-18-2012, 04:25 PM
Then perhaps you should learn the meaning of the term before you pontificate?

This is from the foundation he founded:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BioLogos affirms that the earth and the universe were created. Creationism, however, generally refers to the belief that life on earth is a result of a direct flurry of supernatural intervention in a manner that is concordant with a highly literal view of Genesis 1-3. There are two main varieties of Creationists, those who believe the earth is young and those who believe it is old.

Young Earth Creationists (YECs) hold that the earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old, a figure derived from the genealogies presented in the Bible. YECs believe the most faithful way to read Scripture is through the lens of a literal six-day creation as presented in the first chapter of Genesis, and they further believe that a literal worldwide flood as depicted in Genesis 6-9 is responsible for geological features of the earth and the fossil record. YECs also reject the common ancestry of all species, believing that life was created as it presently appears by God. They view “macro-evolution” (as distinct from within-kind or within-species “micro-evolution”) as incompatible with Scripture and some even argue that it is a direct threat to Christianity.

BioLogos disagrees with the YEC viewpoint, as it rejects the discoveries of almost every modern scientific discipline to arrive at its conclusions and overlooks the revelation of God’s work in creation as uncovered by science. We also maintain that the YEC viewpoint stems from a particular interpretation of Genesis that ignores the rich cultural and theological context in which it was written.

Old Earth Creationists (OECs) accept that the earth and universe are billions of years old, but maintain that these findings are in concordance with a literal reading of the first chapters of Genesis (often by interpreting the days of creation as long periods of time, or by understanding large gaps between the days of creation). OECs hold that modern science tightly corresponds with biblical accounts and assume that God included modern scientific ideas in the Bible, sometimes through secret language that would have been lost on the original audiences. OECs do not accept macro-evolution and the common ancestry of all life forms.

BioLogos disagrees with the OEC viewpoint, because while accepting the scientific consensus for an old earth, it rejects the findings of modern genetics, paleontology, developmental biology, evolutionary biology and many other biological sub-disciplines that make little sense apart from macro-evolution and common ancestry. Furthermore, we believe that God chose to reveal himself within the worldview, culture, and language of the biblical authors.</div></div>

LEARN (http://biologos.org/questions/biologos-id-creationism)

Soflasnapper
02-18-2012, 06:10 PM
No, I had never heard of this guy before, and no, I didn't read his works this afternoon, a little busy caring for my father, as our normal day nurse went to a wedding today.

So thanks for sharing some of the foundation's positions on this, and thanks for unwittingly (I presume) showing that my (admittedly superficial) take on this was true.

For it shows this may be your most incorrect 'correction' of me of all time, and that is saying a lot!

Jeebus, can you actually read???

It says there are two kinds of Creationists, and that this foundation DISAGREES WITH BOTH.

Doesn't that mean by their own words, THEY ARE NOT CREATIONISTS???

Maybe you can rent a backhoe to fill in this hole you've dug for yourself. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Virtually ALL Christians believe that God created the universe, earth, and life (as I do), which doesn't make them, or this gentlemen, CREATIONISTS.

wolfdancer
02-18-2012, 06:54 PM
great reply!!!

LWW
02-19-2012, 03:42 AM
It obviously was the first sentence that I quoted which confused you.

Soflasnapper
02-19-2012, 01:32 PM
Yes, it confused you, I guess, and you didn't pay attention to my last sentence:

Virtually ALL Christians believe that God created the universe, earth, and life (as I do), which doesn't make them, or this gentlemen, CREATIONISTS.

Typical. Common usage baffles you, apparently, so if ever there is a term of art involved, you are way out of your depth.

Biologos is simply a mainstream scientific-friendly Christian theory, which says God created and refined life THROUGH EVOLUTION (as regularly understood, specifically rejecting Intelligent Design compromises to that view). A position that is embraced by most mainstream Christian churches that are not fundamentalist or evangelical, and even the Catholic Church, once they decided to agree with Tielhard de Chardin's position.

DiabloViejo
02-19-2012, 04:05 PM
Creationism is pure out and out B.S.!

Why should I be forced to support (thru my tax dollars) the propagation of a Judeo-Christian myth? I don't see other groups pushing for their particular creation myths to be taught, is there a big outcry from followers of eastern religions for the teaching of "Karmic Studies" or any of that good stuff.

If we are going to teach creationism then we should give equal time to the Vedic, Native American, Zoroastrian, Sikh, Wiccan, Satanist, Animist, creation myths as well. Hey it's only fair now!

Reminds me of this..

"Religion is like a penis. It's great to have one, (some people don't and that's great too).

It's cool to be proud of it.

But please don't just whip it out in public whenever you want and start waving it around.

And don't you EVER try to shove it down someone else's throat."

Now once again for you who missed it..(<u>every single creationist argument torn to shreds.</u>) :
Index of Creationist Claims (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/)

LWW
02-19-2012, 05:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DiabloViejo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Creationism is pure out and out B.S.!</div></div>

So you don't believe in the big bang?

LWW
02-19-2012, 05:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Common usage baffles you, apparently, so if ever there is a term of art involved, you are way out of your depth.</div></div>

Incorrect.

I refuse to allow moonbat crazy leftist ideologues redefine words and concepts.

The young Earth creationists are a very small and uneducated subset of those who believe the universe has a Creator.

The moonbat crazy left has been on a 20 year jihad to redefine all people of faith as being equivalent to the YEC group.

LWW
02-19-2012, 05:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DiabloViejo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If we are going to teach creationism then we should give equal time to the Vedic, Native American, Zoroastrian, Sikh, Wiccan, Satanist, Animist, creation myths as well. Hey it's only fair now!</div></div>

Don't blame me ... it's the leftists who are trying to prevent an open discourse of ideas.

DiabloViejo
02-19-2012, 05:51 PM
Au contraire, it is the creationists who have problems with the Big Bang! From the site I previously linked to.

Any way you wan to try and slice it, there's just no way to deny that creationism is a religious construct. Now that's OK with me..yes if you want to teach your children nonsense, good for for you! Just keep the religious pseudo science crap out of publicly financed schools-- they have enough to do just teaching real science. If that's not good enough then put your kids in a modern christian fundamentalist madrassa and shut up already.

<span style="color: #FF0000">Claim CE420:

The theory of a big bang has been shaken with unresolvable inconsistencies, such as an unexpectedly uneven distribution of matter in the universe and a need for dark matter. Several astronomers think it is no longer a valid theory.
Source:

Gitt, Werner. 1998. What about the big bang? Creation 20(3): 42-44. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/big_bang.asp
Response:

The big bang is supported by a great deal of evidence:

Einstein's general theory of relativity implies that the universe cannot be static; it must be either expanding or contracting.

The more distant a galaxy is, the faster it is receding from us (the Hubble law). This indicates that the universe is expanding. An expanding universe implies that the universe was small and compact in the distant past.

The big bang model predicts that cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation should appear in all directions, with a blackbody spectrum and temperature about 3 degrees K. We observe an exact blackbody spectrum with a temperature of 2.73 degrees K.

The CMB is even to about one part in 100,000. There should be a slight unevenness to account for the uneven distribution of matter in the universe today. Such unevenness is observed, and at a predicted amount.

The big bang predicts the observed abundances of primordial hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium. No other models have been able to do so.

The big bang predicts that the universe changes through time. Because the speed of light is finite, looking at large distances allows us to look into the past. We see, among other changes, that quasars were more common and stars were bluer when the universe was younger.

Note that most of these points are not simply observations that fit with the theory; the big bang theory predicted them.

Inconsistencies are not necessarily unresolvable. The clumpiness of the universe, for example, was resolved by finding unevenness in the CMB. Dark matter has been observed in the effects it has on star and galaxy motions; we simply do not know what it is yet.

There are still unresolved observations. For example, we do not understand why the expansion of the universe seems to be speeding up. However, the big bang has enough supporting evidence behind it that it is likely that new discoveries will add to it, not overthrow it. For example, inflationary universe theory proposes that the size of the universe increased exponentially when the universe was a fraction of a second old (Guth 1997). It was proposed to explain why the big bang did not create large numbers of magnetic monopoles. It also accounts for the observed flatness of space, and it predicted quantitatively the pattern of unevenness of the CMB. Inflationary theory is a significant addition to big bang theory, but it is an extension of big bang theory, not a replacement.

Links:
Feuerbacher, Björn and Ryan Scranton. 2006. Evidence for the Big Bang. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
References:

Guth, Alan H., 1997. (see below).
Further Reading:

Ferris, Timothy. 1997. The Whole Shebang. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Guth, Alan H. 1997. The Inflationary Universe. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Harrison, E. R. 2000. Cosmology: The science of the universe. Cambridge University Press.

Claim CE421:

Anisotropies in the cosmic background radiation measured by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe show an axis. The big bang proposes no special orientations, so an axis discredits the big bang theory, but it is consistent with creationist cosmology.
Source:

Humphreys, Russell, 2003. Light from creation illuminates cosmic axis. Acts and Facts 32(6) (Jun.): 4.
Response:

Humphries referred to the work of Tegmark et al. (2003). Tegmark et al.'s map shows an axis of symmetry for the quadrapole and octopole maps, but the hexadecapole map shows no such axis of symmetry, which could indicate that the axis is an artifact of a systematic bias in the data analysis.

A cosmic axis is compatible with the big bang. If Tegmark et al.'s results are correct, they imply that cosmology is anisotropic (not the same in all directions) on very large length scales. There has been, to date, little evidence gathered about the universe on such scales, but anisotropic cosmologies have been seriously considered. Goedel's rotating universe (Goedel 1949) is one example. Another is a universe with one spatial dimension compacted relative to the other two.
References:

Goedel, Kurt, 1949. An example of a new type of cosmological solutions of Einstein's field equations of gravitation. Reviews of Modern Physics 21(3): 447-450.
Tegmark, M., A. de Oliveira-Costa and A. J. S. Hamilton, 2003. A high resolution foreground cleaned CMB map from WMAP. Physical Review D 68: 123523, http://cul.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302496


Claim CE441:

The universe was supposedly formed in the big bang, but explosions do not produce order or information.

Source:
Big-Bang-Theory, 2002. http://www.big-bang-theory.com

Response:
The total entropy of the universe at the start of the big bang was minimal, perhaps almost zero. Because it was so compact, it had considerably more order than the universe we are in now. The complexity we observe around us today can be produced from the ultimate order of the hot but cooling gas of the big bang.

The big bang was not an explosion. It was an expansion. Besides the fact that it got bigger over time, the big bang has almost nothing in common with an explosion.

Explosions do produce some order amidst their other effects:

Large surface explosions, such as nuclear bombs, produce the familiar mushroom clouds. There are not very highly ordered, but they are not purely random, either.
Supernovae produce heavy elements, and the shock waves from them compress interstellar gases, which begins the formation of new stars.

Powerful explosions can compress carbon into diamond crystals, the most ordered arrangement.

Explosions of atomized gasoline produce compressed gas, which is harnessed in internal combustion engines to power automobiles and other equipment.</span>

Soflasnapper
02-19-2012, 07:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Common usage baffles you, apparently, so if ever there is a term of art involved, you are way out of your depth.</div></div>

Incorrect.

I refuse to allow moonbat crazy leftist ideologues redefine words and concepts.

The young Earth creationists are a very small and uneducated subset of those who believe the universe has a Creator.

The moonbat crazy left has been on a 20 year jihad to redefine all people of faith as being equivalent to the YEC group. </div></div>

But Biologos' statement is that they reject the Creationist views, whether of the old earth, or the young earth, varieties.

Do you still claim their founder is a Creationist? Or do you now admit that is a mistaken claim?

cushioncrawler
02-19-2012, 08:40 PM
I think that there iz som good stuff in BioLogos. Certainly it shows ordinary creationists to be fools. U karnt really argue with a theory that God created evolution.

Which reminds me that Darwin woz very wary of the word evolution, and made sure that it didnt appear in hiz book -- koz it had very religious undertones (overtones even).
Alltho he woz happy to inklood it from about edition 5 -- i think that the use of the word evolved.

I wonder if the Biologos type of evolution iz the type of evolution that Darwin woz worryd about.
mac.

Soflasnapper
02-19-2012, 09:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In his 2006 book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins considers scientific discoveries an "opportunity to worship." In his book Collins examines and subsequently rejects creationism and intelligent design. His own belief system is theistic evolution or evolutionary creation which he prefers to term BioLogos. Collins appeared in December 2006 on The Colbert Report television show[22] and in a March 2007 Fresh Air radio interview[23] to discuss this book. </div></div>

From enotes.com article on Collins (http://www.enotes.com/topic/Francis_Collins)

Qtec
02-20-2012, 02:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DiabloViejo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Creationism is pure out and out B.S.!</div></div>

So you don't believe in the big bang? </div></div>

Why does the BB mean that there has to be a Creator?



Q

LWW
02-20-2012, 04:36 AM
And?

LWW
02-20-2012, 04:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DiabloViejo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Creationism is pure out and out B.S.!</div></div>

So you don't believe in the big bang? </div></div>

Why does the BB mean that there has to be a Creator?



Q </div></div>

You really are illiterate on this aren't you.

Let's explain to you what the BB means.

Prior to the BB this universe did not exist. There were no dimension of j=height, length, depth. Their was no dimension of time. There was no energy. There was no mass. Nothing that exists in this universe existed at all.

And then, it did. Not a little at a time. It just did.

It didn't bang from anywhere. It banged from everywhere.

Being that this universe did not exist, whatever happened must have happened from outside this universe. That is the textbook definition of a supernatural event ... or miracle.

Now, if the universe had a moment of creation, as the BBT dictates, it certainly had a Creator.

If you have a better explanation, fire away.

Qtec
02-20-2012, 05:42 AM
What if our universe is not something special?
What if there are billions of universe's floating around in a bigger universe.
What if, when two of these universe's touch the resulting release of energy causes a new universe to appear?
What if this universe has been expanding and collapsing for zillions of years?

An accidental collision does not imply a Creator.

Your problem is your are confusing the word creation with a supernatural Creator, a God.



Q

LWW
02-20-2012, 06:22 AM
No collision could occur in a universe that did not yet exist.

Dance some more now.

LWW
02-20-2012, 06:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But Biologos' statement is that they reject the Creationist views, whether of the old earth, or the young earth, varieties.

Do you still claim their founder is a Creationist? Or do you now admit that is a mistaken claim? </div></div>

I know you are hardwired to let others explain your "OPINION" to you ... but if you dare, refer to HERE (http://billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=377952#Post377952) for actual enlightenment.

LWW
02-20-2012, 06:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DiabloViejo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Au contraire, it is the creationists who have problems with the Big Bang! </div></div>

Among the most inaccurate claims yet.

The big bang was theory was developed by a Catholic priest.

Einstein, and essentially everyone else buig in physics at the time, denounced the BBT as impossible because it required a Creator.

Once Hubbell verified the predictions of the red shift from an expanding universe, the BBT was accepted.

Next ridiculous claim?

LWW
02-20-2012, 06:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Virtually ALL Christians believe that God created the universe, earth, and life (as I do), which doesn't make them, or this gentlemen, CREATIONISTS.</div></div>

So you ask me to believe that you believe in the universe being created by a Creator, without he universe ever being created by a Creator ... and that you don't practice doublethink ... and that I'm the one who is confused.

Qtec
02-20-2012, 06:46 AM
..and?

Q

DiabloViejo
02-20-2012, 12:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DiabloViejo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Au contraire, it is the creationists who have problems with the Big Bang! </div></div>

Among the most inaccurate claims yet.

The big bang was theory was developed by a Catholic priest.

Einstein, and essentially everyone else buig in physics at the time, denounced the BBT as impossible because it required a Creator.

Once Hubbell verified the predictions of the red shift from an expanding universe, the BBT was accepted.

Next ridiculous claim? </div></div>

Inaccurate or ridiculous claims? LOL

Yes, Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Edouard Lemaitre was a Catholic priest, and a scientist (astronomy and physics) at the Catholic University of Leuven. He did not create the Big Bang theory however, that honor goes to Alexander Friedmann, Lemaitre expanded on Friedmann's work but he was not the father of the Big Bang cosmological theory. How does that make the Big Bang theory constitute proof of a God and further how does that constitute proof of the creationist viewpoint? BTW, many Catholic scientists believe in evolution, and evolution is in fact taught in Catholic schools, (being the product of a Catholic education I should know). BTW, it was Einstein's Theory of General Relativity which laid the foundation for the Big Bang Theory.

Now again as to "inaccurate" or "ridiculous" claims I stand by my previous comments and again I point out to you that the vast majority of creationists do indeed have a problem with the Big Bang. Big Bang Theory vs God's Word (http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/133-the-big-bang-theory-vs-gods-word)

Show me the proof of God's existence, prove to me that any theory, BB or other, constitutes proof of a creator.

Hey look, if you want to believe in mystical mumbo-jumbo then by all means have at it. I understand that some people need a crutch to fall back on and that's OK with me. Just keep the Judeo-Christian religious dogma bullsh*t out of public schools. Go and feed that line of horse-sh*t to your kids in your own home, in your own church, or in your own (religious) schools. Not all of us are Christians and we non-christians do not send our kids to school in order for them to receive religious indoctrination, we send them so that they can receive an education, not the brainwashing that passes for an "education" in Jesusville.

And please stop trying to play the pious holier than thou Christian card, if you were really a Christian you'd pay attention to the things that Christ taught..things like compassion, generosity, helping the poor, loving your fellow human beings..yeah you know..all the things you right wingers hate. Yours is a pitiful, hypocritical, and blatantly transparent attempt at garnering favor for your side by wrapping yourself up in the trappings of religion, trappings which you and your kind will quickly discard when it suits your political aims. You aren't fooling anyone.

cushioncrawler
02-20-2012, 01:41 PM
If the universe woz created, then that duznt meen that God exists.
And it duznt meen that any god exists.
And i kan add that God certainly duznt exist --- and that no verzion of God iz possible.
And i suppoze that no god exists -- alltho argueing about this iz a bit futile.
But argueing about the nonexistance of God iznt futile.
mac.

Soflasnapper
02-20-2012, 02:11 PM
Einstein, and essentially everyone else buig in physics at the time, denounced the BBT as impossible because it required a Creator.


And here I get off your crazy train.

You put Einstein up as a Creationist at the top of this thread.

You now explain he condemned the BBT because it required a Creator? Which he believed in, you previously said.

Oh, and you say **I** cannot think straight, and hold too many contradictory positions.

Physician, heal thyself. Quickly.

(Are you still allowed to drive?

eg8r
02-20-2012, 02:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Show me the proof of God's existence, prove to me that any theory, BB or other, constitutes proof of a creator.
</div></div>What caused the Big Bang?

eg8r

LWW
02-20-2012, 04:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Einstein, and essentially everyone else buig in physics at the time, denounced the BBT as impossible because it required a Creator.


And here I get off your crazy train.

You put Einstein up as a Creationist at the top of this thread.

You now explain he condemned the BBT because it required a Creator? Which he believed in, you previously said.

Oh, and you say **I** cannot think straight, and hold too many contradictory positions.

Physician, heal thyself. Quickly.

(Are you still allowed to drive? </div></div>

Yes ... Einstein was capable of folding new information into his thought processes and change his opinion.

It's a shame you have never learned this art.

DiabloViejo
02-20-2012, 04:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Show me the proof of God's existence, prove to me that any theory, BB or other, constitutes proof of a creator.
</div></div>What caused the Big Bang?

eg8r </div></div>

I don't know, and neither do you. The difference is that I'm willing to admit that I don't know and am willing to leave it to science to provide an explanation, unlike primitives who are driven to explain anything they don't comprehend as the work of one god or another, or even a host of gods.

And like I said, if you want to believe in a god, then by all means have at it. If you want to teach your children to believe in your god, then do so..just keep it out of public schools or put your kids in a fundamentalist school where they can freely absorb all the nonsense you want them to believe in. I, and others, have our own beliefs and we don't appreciate our tax dollars being used to indoctrinate our kids in beliefs that go contrary to our own. Does that clear things up for you?

eg8r
02-20-2012, 10:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The difference is that I'm willing to admit that I don't know and am willing to leave it to science to provide an explanation,</div></div>How did the super tiny particles, or gas, or blah blah blah get there in the beginning for a a bang to even happen? I am just asking an easy common sense question. How often does science explain something appearing out of thin air with zero outside help?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I, and others, have our own beliefs and we don't appreciate our tax dollars being used to indoctrinate our kids in beliefs that go contrary to our own. Does that clear things up for you? </div></div>Clear as mud. You don't want my ideas influencing your children yet you want your ideas to influence my wallet. That way your chick can run around and screw everything that walks with the satisfaction that her contraception will be paid for with my insurance payment.

eg8r

DiabloViejo
02-21-2012, 01:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The difference is that I'm willing to admit that I don't know and am willing to leave it to science to provide an explanation,</div></div>How did the super tiny particles, or gas, or blah blah blah get there in the beginning for a a bang to even happen? I am just asking an easy common sense question. How often does science explain something appearing out of thin air with zero outside help?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I, and others, have our own beliefs and we don't appreciate our tax dollars being used to indoctrinate our kids in beliefs that go contrary to our own. Does that clear things up for you? </div></div>Clear as mud. You don't want my ideas influencing your children yet you want your ideas to influence my wallet. That way your chick can run around and screw everything that walks with the satisfaction that her contraception will be paid for with my insurance payment.

eg8r </div></div>

Wow, how low can you go? My "chick" happens to be my wife of 20 years, she's in her 50's and has nothing to do with this discussion.

Would you like it if I brought your wife, daughter, or mother, into this discussion and attempted to smear her as some kind of slut? How very Christian of you! I would <u>never </u>do anything of the sort because I have a least a modicum of respect and class and would NEVER drag another poster's wife, kids, or relatives into a discussion, nor would I say anything bad about them. I really think you owe me an apology for your swinish comment.

BTW, you're just another wanna be, tough guy keyboard commando, hiding behind a user name and distance. You would never have the stones to say something like that to my face because you'd wind up in world of pain. So stop acting like a petulant adolescent punk. Grow up, man up, act your age, and mind your pitifully inadequate manners.

Qtec
02-21-2012, 02:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How often does science explain something appearing out of thin air with zero outside help? </div></div>

link (http://www.philosyphia.com/technology/the-amazing-appearing-quark)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here’s the really Fun Fact™ for today that I wanted to share with you, though, about quarks. If you don’t think anything is amazing in the world, get this one:

Quarks always exist in pairs (at least) — a regular quark and an anti-quark. The “anti” partner is exactly the same as the quark, just an opposite charge, so kind of like how you have yin and yang, right? This partner arrangement is called a, “hadron”. A hadron’s quarks are always stuck together like that couple in high school that moved as single unit and used up the four minutes of passing time between every class to exchange oral flora. A quark pair is held together with a sort of stringy stuff/force called, “gluons”. (The physicist who thought up that one was freaking sharp.) It takes a whole heaping lot of force to even try to pull them apart.

However, if you beef up and try to separate a pair of quarks, which you can only do in experimental arenas like particle accelerators, a funny thing happens. The gluons stretch, forming stringy “tubes” between the quarks, somewhat like a rubber band. If you could actually see it (nobody has), it might look something like this:
http://www.philosyphia.com/wp-content/uploads/quark1.jpg

But a funny thing happens when you get the quarks too far apart and you push them even further away from each other. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Instead of the gluon tube breaking and letting the quarks fly free, the tube splits in the center and <span style="color: #000099">a new quark-antiquark pair appears at the ends of the split <u>out of absolutely nothing.</u></span></span>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Did you read that? <u>The new pair of particles appears out of thin air. </u> Actually, it’s not even air, it’s a complete vacuum. There’s nothing around them as far as we know, <u>yet these two particles “BOING!” into existence.</u></span> </div></div>





<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Intelligent design (ID) is the proposition that "<u>certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause</u>, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea". The leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,[n 1][3] and believe the designer to be the Christian God.[n 2]

ID seeks to redefine science in a fundamental way that would invoke supernatural explanations, a viewpoint known as theistic science. It puts forward a number of arguments, the most prominent of which are irreducible complexity and specified complexity, in support of the existence of a designer.[4] The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations in favor of continued acceptance of methodological naturalism,[n 3][n 4][5][6] and has rejected both irreducible complexity and specified complexity for a wide range of conceptual and factual flaws.[7][8][9][10] The vast majority of the scientific community has labeled intelligent design as pseudoscience and that it is more of a religious rather than a scientific viewpoint. It does not qualify as true science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.

Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings such as the United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, which barred the teaching of "Creation Science" in public schools as breaching the separation of church and state.[11][n 5][12] The first significant published use of intelligent design was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes.[13] From the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents were supported by the Discovery Institute, which, together with its Center for Science and Culture, planned and funded the "intelligent design movement".[14][n 1] They advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula, leading to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, where U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[15] </div></div>

If I was to argue the point that there is a Creator, I would use the fact that there is absolutely no evidence of Him.

Q

LWW
02-21-2012, 02:56 AM
Yet you just provided it.

DiabloViejo
02-21-2012, 03:03 AM
http://www.unattributable.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/motivational-bible.jpg

Qtec
02-21-2012, 03:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yet you just provided it. </div></div>

Add the word 'by'.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yet you just provided it 'by'</div></div> ..and then you go on to show me exactly WTF you are rambling on about.

Like I have said a million times before, if you have a point to make, make it!

Q

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If I was to argue the point that there is a Creator, I would use the fact that there is absolutely no evidence of Him.

Q </div></div>

LWW
02-21-2012, 05:45 AM
Your inability to grasp simple subjects is not my problem Snoop.

eg8r
02-21-2012, 08:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did you read that? The new pair of particles appears out of thin air.</div></div>While that seems to mean what you want it to mean it doesn't necessarily. Let them keep researching. Also, remember for that to happen there had to be an original quark/anti-quark pair. Where did they come from?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If I was to argue the point that there is a Creator, I would use the fact that there is absolutely no evidence of Him.
</div></div>If you could successfully argue it then go for it.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
02-21-2012, 10:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Einstein, and essentially everyone else buig in physics at the time, denounced the BBT as impossible because it required a Creator.


And here I get off your crazy train.

You put Einstein up as a Creationist at the top of this thread.

You now explain he condemned the BBT because it required a Creator? Which he believed in, you previously said.

Oh, and you say **I** cannot think straight, and hold too many contradictory positions.

Physician, heal thyself. Quickly.

(Are you still allowed to drive? </div></div>

Yes ... Einstein was capable of folding new information into his thought processes and change his opinion.

It's a shame you have never learned this art. </div></div>

What evidence is there that Einstein changed his views on this, and on what grounds?

This would appear to be the conversion point:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">'A Day Without Yesterday': Georges Lemaitre & the Big Bang
MARK MIDBON
In January 1933, the Belgian mathematician and Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre traveled with Albert Einstein to California for a series of seminars. After the Belgian detailed his Big Bang theory, Einstein stood up applauded, and said, “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.” </div></div> here (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0022.html)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Einstein did not take kindly to Lemaitre's use of the cosmological constant. He regarded the constant as the worst mistake of his career, and he was upset by Lemaitre's use of his super-galactic fudge factor. </div></div>

So, as of '33, Einstein was a fan of Lemaitre's theory, because of its beauty and explanatory power. Not apparently because of a a shift to belief in a creator.

Soflasnapper
02-21-2012, 10:53 AM
There are far more virtual particle pairs created than simply quark/anti-quark.

By the standard paradigm, virtual particle pairs are created, and then disappeared, constantly, from the non-zero base energy state of the space-time manifold.

Mainly this would have no measurable effect as the creation and destruction is too brief (generally the masses involved have to be below the Heisenberg uncertainty threshhold (as to measurable momentum)).

But it creates the situation behind the Hawking radiation from what were thought to be theoretical one-way streets-- black holes. The virtual pair production occurs near the event horizon as elsewhere (maybe more there), and sometimes one of the virtual particles enters the event horizon, whereas the other escapes.

It's also an explanation of 'action at a distance,' a bugaboo for physics since Newton came up with his theory of universal gravitation. He himself pronounced action at a distance an absurdity, and declined to propose what mediated the forces over a distance ('"Hypotheses non fingo," Newton famously declared, which is Latin for "I feign no hypotheses.") The seeming action at a distance is mediated by these virtual particle creations, and flows.

People refer to a kind of quantum 'foam' effect to analogize what's going on.

LWW
02-21-2012, 11:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What evidence is there that Einstein changed his views on this, and on what grounds?</div></div>

Edwin Hubbell's verification of the red shift.

LWW
02-21-2012, 11:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are far more virtual particle pairs created than simply quark/anti-quark.

By the standard paradigm, virtual particle pairs are created, and then disappeared, constantly, from the non-zero base energy state of the space-time manifold.</div></div>

What you have described also violates the first law of thermodynamics ... yet it happens.

Soflasnapper
02-21-2012, 12:36 PM
It doesn't violate the 1st law of thermodynamics, which only applies to a closed system anyway.

But moreover, as the particle-anti-particle pair are literally that, their sum total of charge, spin, AND MASS sum to zero, so no violation at all.

Soflasnapper
02-21-2012, 12:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What evidence is there that Einstein changed his views on this, and on what grounds?</div></div>

Edwin Hubbell's verification of the red shift. </div></div>

Heh! NOT ON THE BBT itself, but as to your various competing claims that he WAS a creationist, AND he objected to the BBT because it required a creator.

Presumably the change involved would have been from a 'no-creator' belief to a 'creator exists' belief, and that's what I ask a reference for.

DiabloViejo
02-21-2012, 12:47 PM
You still owe me an apology. But apparently you're too much of a pig to apologize for for your filthy and disgusting comments about my wife. Yes indeed, you are a nasty, filthy, uncouth, ill mannered animal. And that's all you will ever be. Congratulations Mr. eg8r, you are the poster boy for Republican etiquette and manners!

http://www.digitalphotograffiti.co.uk/site/downloads/adu-726397/animals/images/DirtyPig.jpg

eg8r
02-21-2012, 12:53 PM
LOL, I have no idea what you are talking about. If your wife is that filthy then talk to her about it.

eg8r

DiabloViejo
02-21-2012, 01:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, I have no idea what you are talking about. If your wife is that filthy then talk to her about it.

eg8r </div></div>

Let me refresh your memory Mr. Mentally Defective Pig: Post #378237 - Yesterday at 11:04 PM in this thread.

eg8r
02-21-2012, 02:53 PM
LOL, now that is funny. You call me "mentally defective" yet here you show us that you have the comprehension problem and thin skinned all the like. If it makes you feel better my response has nothing to do with your wife or anyone elses specifically. Judging by your response though, common sense is not your strong point so I guess we will just have to walk on egg shells around poor poor sensitive you.

eg8r

DiabloViejo
02-21-2012, 03:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, now that is funny.

eg8r </div></div>

What's funny is that you are a punk who would never have the guts to say things like that to my face, so you hide behind your supposed impregnable internet anonymity. LOL, what a spineless wuzz you are, picking on another person's family members with disgusting remarks. Be careful or your innuendos could wind up being shoved right in your endo.

LWW
02-21-2012, 04:14 PM
Fats ... WTF has happened to you?

eg8r
02-21-2012, 07:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> so you hide behind your supposed impregnable internet anonymity. </div></div>So says the nutjob with the given name DiabloViejo. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, what a spineless wuzz you are, picking on another person's family members with disgusting remarks.</div></div>LOL, again, more proof that your comprehension sucks. I even clarified my statement and you still don't get it.

You need a bit thicker skin to play on the board. Judging by the childish way you have responded I believe I now have a good idea who you are even though you hide behind your supposed impregnable internet anonymity.

eg8r

DiabloViejo
02-22-2012, 02:31 AM
There’s More to Nothing Than We Knew
By DENNIS OVERBYE
Published: February 20, 2012
NY TIMES--SPACE AND COSMOS (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/science/space/cosmologists-try-to-explain-a-universe-springing-from-nothing.html?_r=1&ref=science)

Why is there something, rather than nothing at all?

It is, perhaps, the mystery of last resort. Scientists may be at least theoretically able to trace every last galaxy back to a bump in the Big Bang, to complete the entire quantum roll call of particles and forces. But the question of why there was a Big Bang or any quantum particles at all was presumed to lie safely out of scientific bounds, in the realms of philosophy or religion.

Now even that assumption is no longer safe, as exemplified by a new book by the cosmologist Lawrence M. Krauss. In it he joins a chorus of physicists and cosmologists who have been pushing into sacred ground, proclaiming more and more loudly in the last few years that science can explain how something — namely our star-spangled cosmos — could be born from, if not nothing, something very close to it. God, they argue, is not part of the equation. The book, “A Universe From Nothing,” is a best seller and follows recent popular tomes like “God Is Not Great,” by the late Christopher Hitchens; “The God Delusion,” by Richard Dawkins; and “The Grand Design,” by the British cosmologist Stephen Hawking (with Leonard Mlodinow), which generated headlines two years ago with its assertion that physicists do not need God to account for the universe.

Dr. Krauss is a pint-size spark plug of erudition and ambition, who often seems to be jetting off in several directions at once on more missions than can be listed on a business card. Among other things he is Foundation Professor and director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University.

And he knows his universe. In 1995, he and Michael S. Turner of the University of Chicago made waves by arguing that many of the paradoxes regarding cosmology could be resolved if a large portion of the cosmos resided in the form of a hitherto-undiscovered energy, known then as the cosmological constant. Three years later astronomers discovered that the expansion of the universe was being accelerated by some “dark energy” that behaves exactly like the cosmological constant.

Dr. Krauss is also a prolific author of popular science books, including “The Physics of Star Trek.” And he has been an outspoken critic of attempts to introduce creationist ideas and to censor the teaching of evolution in schools and textbooks.

The new book grew out of a talk he gave in 2009 that got more than a million hits on YouTube.

The point of the book, Dr. Krauss, a self-described nonbeliever, writes at the outset, is not to try to make people lose their faith, but to illuminate how modern science has changed the meaning of nothingness from a vague philosophical concept to something we can almost put under a lab microscope.

How well you think he succeeds might depend on how far you yourself want to go down the rabbit hole of nonbeing. Why, for example, should we assume that nothingness is more natural than somethingness? Indeed, you might ask why it is that we think there is something here at all. The total energy of the universe might actually be zero, according to the strange bookkeeping of Einstein’s general theory of relativity, as Dr. Krauss points out. “The universe,” Alan H. Guth, a physicist at M.I.T., likes to say, “might be the ultimate free lunch.” Even space and time themselves might be a kind of holographic illusion, string theorists say.

You might think to dispute this by kicking a rock, but remember that both the rock and your foot are mostly empty space, prevented from intermingling by electric fields.

Dr. Krauss delineates three different kinds of nothingness. First is what may have passed muster as nothing with the ancient Greeks: empty space. But we now know that even empty space is filled with energy, vibrating with electromagnetic fields and so-called virtual particles dancing in and out of existence on borrowed energy courtesy of the randomness that characterizes reality on the smallest scales, according to the rules of quantum theory.

Second is nothing, without even space and time. Following a similar quantum logic, theorists have proposed that whole universes, little bubbles of space-time, could pop into existence, like bubbles in boiling water, out of this nothing.

There is a deeper nothing in which even the laws of physics are absent. Where do the laws come from? Are they born with the universe, or is the universe born in accordance with them? Here Dr. Krauss, unhappily in my view, resorts to the newest and most controversial toy in the cosmologist’s toolbox: the multiverse, a nearly infinite assemblage of universes, each with its own randomly determined rules, particles and forces, that represent solutions to the basic equations of string theory — the alleged theory of everything, or perhaps, as wags say, anything.

Within this landscape of possibilities, almost anything goes.

But even the multiverse is not totally lawless, as Dr. Krauss acknowledged. We are not quite there yet. At the very least, there would still be the string equations and those quantum principles that undergird them. Is quantum randomness the secret of existence?

“Maybe in the true eternal multiverse there are truly no laws,” Dr. Krauss said in an e-mail. “Maybe indeed randomness is all there is and everything that can happen happens somewhere.”

It would be silly to think that we won’t have better answers and better questions 50 or 100 years from now, but for the moment this is the story science can tell. If you find it bleak, that is your problem. “The universe is the way it is, whether we like it or not,” Dr. Krauss writes.

It gets worse.

If nothing is our past, it could also be our future. As the universe, driven by dark energy — that is to say, the negative pressure of nothing — expands faster and faster, the galaxies will become invisible, and all the energy and information will be sucked out of the cosmos. The universe will revert to nothingness.

Nothing to nothing.

One day it’s all going to seem like a dream.

But who is or was the dreamer?

Qtec
02-22-2012, 03:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> go accustomed avenue has a baleful weakness is the articles not anatomy his own Lord beating points. In added words, anniversary acreage of artefact were related, but no absolute account field.</div></div>

LOL

Q

LWW
02-22-2012, 03:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It doesn't violate the 1st law of thermodynamics, which only applies to a closed system anyway.

But moreover, as the particle-anti-particle pair are literally that, their sum total of charge, spin, AND MASS sum to zero, so no violation at all. </div></div>

Are you now claiming that the natural universe is not a closed system?

You really should do more than a cut and paste on this. Might I suggest "THE ELEGANT UNIVERSE" by Brian Greene as a good starting point.

What you completely miss is that the BB itself violates the first rule of thermodynamics ... which implies that this natural universe is not a closed system ... which implies that something supernatural exists somehow outside the natural universe.

Theologians have debated since the dawn of man about what that would be, and the debate will likely continue until the end of time.

What your quantum foam proves isn't that no creation happened ... but that creation continues.

Hubbell also proved that by proving that space is ever expanding.

LWW
02-22-2012, 04:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What evidence is there that Einstein changed his views on this, and on what grounds?</div></div>

Edwin Hubbell's verification of the red shift. </div></div>

Heh! NOT ON THE BBT itself, but as to your various competing claims that he WAS a creationist, AND he objected to the BBT because it required a creator.

Presumably the change involved would have been from a 'no-creator' belief to a 'creator exists' belief, and that's what I ask a reference for. </div></div>

Oh please, the existence of the red shift and the existence of the background cosmic radiation ... set an AM radio or old TV between stations if you want to witness it ... are the main pieces of evidence for the BBT.

As to the denial by self proclaimed atheists ... it continues to this day.

In an effort to "PROVE" that higher and unseen dimensions of existence exist ... they conjure up a universe of higher and unseen dimensions of existence.

eg8r
02-22-2012, 08:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It would be silly to think that we won’t have better answers and better questions 50 or 100 years from now, but for the moment this is the story science can tell.</div></div>Based on this article science is telling us there is a creator.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
02-22-2012, 10:15 AM
So you don't want to show any evidence that Einstein hated the BBT because it implied a creator, although he was a creationist, you say, and then did come to like the BBT, perhaps changing his mind to that same creationism as a result or ahead of that change?

Yeah, I know-- I couldn't find that combination of claims anywhere, either.

Soflasnapper
02-22-2012, 10:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It doesn't violate the 1st law of thermodynamics, which only applies to a closed system anyway.

But moreover, as the particle-anti-particle pair are literally that, their sum total of charge, spin, AND MASS sum to zero, so no violation at all. </div></div>

Are you now claiming that the natural universe is not a closed system?

You really should do more than a cut and paste on this. Might I suggest "THE ELEGANT UNIVERSE" by Brian Greene as a good starting point.

What you completely miss is that the BB itself violates the first rule of thermodynamics ... which implies that this natural universe is not a closed system ... which implies that something supernatural exists somehow outside the natural universe.

Theologians have debated since the dawn of man about what that would be, and the debate will likely continue until the end of time.

What your quantum foam proves isn't that no creation happened ... but that creation continues.

Hubbell also proved that by proving that space is ever expanding. </div></div>

Geeze, I didn't miss any of that. Your imaginary world version of me missed it perhaps.

You complain that I say the universe is not a closed system, and then lecture me on how I missed the fact that the universe is not a closed system (which I said or implied). Remarkable, but perhaps clinically significant?

You have failed to address the second point, which is that since all the extant physical properties of each of the virtual pairs is the opposite of the other, all sum to zero, including for mass, so even if the universe were a closed system, such pair creation/annihilation wouldn't violate anything.

And on a far vaster scale, the same thing might account for why a big bang might not violate what we would think it does-- simply have an anti-matter universe created at the same time, zeroing out the sum totals.

LWW
02-22-2012, 02:10 PM
Evidence has been presented.

That you see truth the way Dracula sees holy water is not my concern.

LWW
02-22-2012, 02:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And on a far vaster scale, the same thing might account for why a big bang might not violate what we would think it does-- simply have an anti-matter universe created at the same time, zeroing out the sum totals. </div></div>

If that were the case ... neither universe would have survived.

You are in so deep over your head that this is getting comical ... except that your arrogance won't allow you to realize it.

Soflasnapper
02-22-2012, 05:48 PM
Both universes would survive fine, so long as they didn't meet each other.

My childhood reading was our family's Encyclopedia of Science 10 volume set. I learned the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction and the theory of special relativity's equations using it in junior high school, as Einstein and his theories were of particular interest to me at a very young age.

After getting a copy of Gravitation, co-authored by John Wheeler, I was inspired to transfer to Princeton University to take his courses and study astrophysics in general, as part of my math degree curriculum. I still have the book, now in storage.

Look up Wheeler, to find out how ill-informed I must be on this subject. As usual, you really have no idea what you're talking about.

Qtec
02-23-2012, 09:51 AM
We have had a whole thread on this but nobody has really defined Creationism to everyone's satisfaction.

link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A)

"The whole of Creation testifies to the genius of God's creative beauty."

No it doesn't.


Q

Soflasnapper
02-23-2012, 10:33 AM
Is that a banana in your hand or are you just happy God created bananas perfectly for human use? LOL!

cushioncrawler
02-23-2012, 07:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We have had a whole thread on this but nobody has really defined Creationism to everyone's satisfaction.

link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A)

"The whole of Creation testifies to the genius of God's creative beauty." No it doesn't. Q</div></div>Words are diffikult to define.
God. God's genius. Creation. Whole of creation. Creative beauty. Testifys.
mac.

JohnnyD
02-24-2012, 12:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We have had a whole thread on this but nobody has really defined Creationism to everyone's satisfaction.

link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A)

"The whole of Creation testifies to the genius of God's creative beauty." No it doesn't. Q</div></div>Words are diffikult to define.
God. God's genius. Creation. Whole of creation. Creative beauty. Testifys.
mac. </div></div> Mac how is your sail boat doing? Sail to New York and the refreshments are on me in the finest restaurant in Queens.

JohnnyD
02-24-2012, 12:24 AM
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

cushioncrawler
02-24-2012, 02:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JohnnyD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">......Mac how is your sail boat doing? Sail to New York and the refreshments are on me in the finest restaurant in Queens......</div></div>Keepalookout for my diy-ply-sectionable-nesting-outrigger-standup-punt. It passed its first trial. But i might retrofit a pair of retro paddlewheels.
mac.

http://i1035.photobucket.com/albums/a432/cushioncrawler/punt/DSCF0226.jpg