Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
You need to look at the context and what I was responding to, Deist.

My specific question was regarding whether matter had been created (in violation of the 1st Law) or whether it had always existed (i.e. it is eternally existent).

The ones I was replying to had stated their belief that matter had NO beginning (i.e. an open boundary in 'eternity past').

If matter had a beginning (no matter how long ago one supposes it was), then we must deal with a violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

Not nessisarily. The theory that all the mass and energy in the universe comes from outside the universe would actually be supported by the first law. If the all matter in the universe could not be created here, yet it is here, it must able to be created, just not here.

T
K
O

So tell me about this supernatural place you have postulated.

0 Replies

I've postulated nothing supernatural.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
real life wrote:
You need to look at the context and what I was responding to, Deist.

My specific question was regarding whether matter had been created (in violation of the 1st Law) or whether it had always existed (i.e. it is eternally existent).

The ones I was replying to had stated their belief that matter had NO beginning (i.e. an open boundary in 'eternity past').

If matter had a beginning (no matter how long ago one supposes it was), then we must deal with a violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

Not nessisarily. The theory that all the mass and energy in the universe comes from outside the universe would actually be supported by the first law. If the all matter in the universe could not be created here, yet it is here, it must able to be created, just not here.

T
K
O

So tell me about this supernatural place you have postulated.

I've postulated nothing supernatural.

Ok, sorry for the mistake. Maybe I'm using words in an unusual way (from the dictionary)

from http://www.answers.com/topic/supernatural

Quote:

supernatural(sū'pər-năch'ər-əl)

adj.

Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.

from http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/supernatural

Quote:

supernatural
One entry found.

supernatural

Main Entry: su·per·nat·u·ral
Pronunciation: \ˌsü-pər-ˈna-chə-rəl, -ˈnach-rəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature
Date: 15th century
1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe

2 a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/supernatural

Quote:

su·per·nat·u·ral (spr-nchr-l)
adj.
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces

What do YOU call it when you postulate another realm of existence which is apart from our universe, and is not bounded by the natural laws of our universe?

0 Replies

Did I postulate that the bounds of nature ended at our universe?

T
K
O

0 Replies

No, but he really, really needs you to agree to that, so that he can laugh at your argument.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
real life wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
real life wrote:
You need to look at the context and what I was responding to, Deist.

My specific question was regarding whether matter had been created (in violation of the 1st Law) or whether it had always existed (i.e. it is eternally existent).

The ones I was replying to had stated their belief that matter had NO beginning (i.e. an open boundary in 'eternity past').

If matter had a beginning (no matter how long ago one supposes it was), then we must deal with a violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

Not nessisarily. The theory that all the mass and energy in the universe comes from outside the universe would actually be supported by the first law. If the all matter in the universe could not be created here, yet it is here, it must able to be created, just not here.

T
K
O

So tell me about this supernatural place you have postulated.

I've postulated nothing supernatural.

Ok, sorry for the mistake. Maybe I'm using words in an unusual way (from the dictionary)

from http://www.answers.com/topic/supernatural

Quote:
supernatural(sū'pər-năch'ər-əl)

adj.

Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.

from http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/supernatural

Quote:
supernatural
One entry found.

supernatural

Main Entry: su·per·nat·u·ral
Pronunciation: \ˌsü-pər-ˈna-chə-rəl, -ˈnach-rəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature
Date: 15th century
1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe

2 a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/supernatural

Quote:
su·per·nat·u·ral (spr-nchr-l)
adj.
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces

What do YOU call it when you postulate another realm of existence which is apart from our universe, and is not bounded by the natural laws of our universe?

Did I postulate that the bounds of nature ended at our universe?

You said that the 1st Law of Thermodynamics did not prohibit the creation of matter in the place you postulated.

So I'd have to say , yes, it appears you DID say that.

Unless I missed your meaning. Please clarify if I did. Cool

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
real life wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
real life wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
real life wrote:
You need to look at the context and what I was responding to, Deist.

My specific question was regarding whether matter had been created (in violation of the 1st Law) or whether it had always existed (i.e. it is eternally existent).

The ones I was replying to had stated their belief that matter had NO beginning (i.e. an open boundary in 'eternity past').

If matter had a beginning (no matter how long ago one supposes it was), then we must deal with a violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

Not nessisarily. The theory that all the mass and energy in the universe comes from outside the universe would actually be supported by the first law. If the all matter in the universe could not be created here, yet it is here, it must able to be created, just not here.

T
K
O

So tell me about this supernatural place you have postulated.

I've postulated nothing supernatural.

Ok, sorry for the mistake. Maybe I'm using words in an unusual way (from the dictionary)

from http://www.answers.com/topic/supernatural

Quote:
supernatural(sū'pər-năch'ər-əl)

adj.

Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.

from http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/supernatural

Quote:
supernatural
One entry found.

supernatural

Main Entry: su·per·nat·u·ral
Pronunciation: \ˌsü-pər-ˈna-chə-rəl, -ˈnach-rəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature
Date: 15th century
1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe

2 a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/supernatural

Quote:
su·per·nat·u·ral (spr-nchr-l)
adj.
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces

What do YOU call it when you postulate another realm of existence which is apart from our universe, and is not bounded by the natural laws of our universe?

Did I postulate that the bounds of nature ended at our universe?

You said that the 1st Law of Thermodynamics did not prohibit the creation of matter in the place you postulated.

So I'd have to say , yes, it appears you DID say that.

Unless I missed your meaning. Please clarify if I did.

I did not say anything of the sort. How many times must you be reminded that you don't understand the laws of science very well? I've reminded forth graders to keep their shoes tied less.

I've never postualted that the bounds of the nature ended at our universe, no matter what you wish I stated.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
real life wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
real life wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
real life wrote:
You need to look at the context and what I was responding to, Deist.

My specific question was regarding whether matter had been created (in violation of the 1st Law) or whether it had always existed (i.e. it is eternally existent).

The ones I was replying to had stated their belief that matter had NO beginning (i.e. an open boundary in 'eternity past').

If matter had a beginning (no matter how long ago one supposes it was), then we must deal with a violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

Not nessisarily. The theory that all the mass and energy in the universe comes from outside the universe would actually be supported by the first law. If the all matter in the universe could not be created here, yet it is here, it must able to be created, just not here.

T
K
O

So tell me about this supernatural place you have postulated.

I've postulated nothing supernatural.

Ok, sorry for the mistake. Maybe I'm using words in an unusual way (from the dictionary)

from http://www.answers.com/topic/supernatural

Quote:
supernatural(sū'pər-năch'ər-əl)

adj.

Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.

from http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/supernatural

Quote:
supernatural
One entry found.

supernatural

Main Entry: su·per·nat·u·ral
Pronunciation: \ˌsü-pər-ˈna-chə-rəl, -ˈnach-rəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature
Date: 15th century
1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe

2 a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/supernatural

Quote:
su·per·nat·u·ral (spr-nchr-l)
adj.
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces

What do YOU call it when you postulate another realm of existence which is apart from our universe, and is not bounded by the natural laws of our universe?

Did I postulate that the bounds of nature ended at our universe?

You said that the 1st Law of Thermodynamics did not prohibit the creation of matter in the place you postulated.

So I'd have to say , yes, it appears you DID say that.

Unless I missed your meaning. Please clarify if I did.

I did not say anything of the sort. How many times must you be reminded that you don't understand the laws of science very well? I've reminded forth graders to keep their shoes tied less.

I've never postualted that the bounds of the nature ended at our universe, no matter what you wish I stated.

T
K
O

Ok, sorry for the mistake.

Well then, tell me about this place outside the universe where the 1st Law of Thermodynamics doesn't prohibit the creation of matter.

How do you know it exists, and what else do you know about it?

0 Replies

Like scientists before me, I can only theorize.

Like previous scientists with the discovery of subatomic particles, the prediction of their existance takes place long before the actual discovery of them.

I predict that outside of the domain of our universe, by laws of nature yet to be discovered, energy in different forms can be created from nothing or potentially phased into existance. The potential for mulitple universes additionally exists, and the potential for one universe to exchange energy or mass with another universe is additionally plausible.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
real life wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
real life wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
real life wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
real life wrote:
You need to look at the context and what I was responding to, Deist.

My specific question was regarding whether matter had been created (in violation of the 1st Law) or whether it had always existed (i.e. it is eternally existent).

The ones I was replying to had stated their belief that matter had NO beginning (i.e. an open boundary in 'eternity past').

If matter had a beginning (no matter how long ago one supposes it was), then we must deal with a violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

Not nessisarily. The theory that all the mass and energy in the universe comes from outside the universe would actually be supported by the first law. If the all matter in the universe could not be created here, yet it is here, it must able to be created, just not here.

T
K
O

So tell me about this supernatural place you have postulated.

I've postulated nothing supernatural.

Ok, sorry for the mistake. Maybe I'm using words in an unusual way (from the dictionary)

from http://www.answers.com/topic/supernatural

Quote:
supernatural(sū'pər-năch'ər-əl)

adj.

Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.

from http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/supernatural

Quote:
supernatural
One entry found.

supernatural

Main Entry: su·per·nat·u·ral
Pronunciation: \ˌsü-pər-ˈna-chə-rəl, -ˈnach-rəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature
Date: 15th century
1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe

2 a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/supernatural

Quote:
su·per·nat·u·ral (spr-nchr-l)
adj.
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces

What do YOU call it when you postulate another realm of existence which is apart from our universe, and is not bounded by the natural laws of our universe?

Did I postulate that the bounds of nature ended at our universe?

You said that the 1st Law of Thermodynamics did not prohibit the creation of matter in the place you postulated.

So I'd have to say , yes, it appears you DID say that.

Unless I missed your meaning. Please clarify if I did.

I did not say anything of the sort. How many times must you be reminded that you don't understand the laws of science very well? I've reminded forth graders to keep their shoes tied less.

I've never postualted that the bounds of the nature ended at our universe, no matter what you wish I stated.

T
K
O

Ok, sorry for the mistake.

Well then, tell me about this place outside the universe where the 1st Law of Thermodynamics doesn't prohibit the creation of matter.

How do you know it exists, and what else do you know about it?

Like scientists before me, I can only theorize.

Like previous scientists with the discovery of subatomic particles, the prediction of their existance takes place long before the actual discovery of them.

I predict that outside of the domain of our universe, by laws of nature yet to be discovered, energy in different forms can be created from nothing or potentially phased into existance. The potential for mulitple universes additionally exists, and the potential for one universe to exchange energy or mass with another universe is additionally plausible.

Oh, ok sorry.

I had always thought that scientific theories were based on evidence.

What evidence do you have that ANY place outside of the universe exists?

And what evidence do you have that it is exempt from ANY of the scientific laws that govern our universe?

Does 'I can't explain this' qualify as evidence?

If we say 'we can't explain how matter got here unless it was created in a place outside the universe where scientific laws don't apply', does that amount to evidence?

0 Replies

As I explained citing the example of sub-atomic particles, and their discovery. I believe the evidence will be discovered.

As for outside of existance, look at the modern nuclear model, and you will find that electrons do not orbit but instead appear sparatically in a given space. Many scientists in the field believe that the electrons actually phase in and out.

I believe that further research will lead to the discovery of what exists outside of the domain of our universe, and I doubt it will be simply a "place" as you have put it.

By the way...

real life wrote:

I had always thought that scientific theories were based on evidence.

...it's time to provide some for your theory.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Don't hold your breath.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
real life wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
real life wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
real life wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
real life wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
real life wrote:
You need to look at the context and what I was responding to, Deist.

My specific question was regarding whether matter had been created (in violation of the 1st Law) or whether it had always existed (i.e. it is eternally existent).

The ones I was replying to had stated their belief that matter had NO beginning (i.e. an open boundary in 'eternity past').

If matter had a beginning (no matter how long ago one supposes it was), then we must deal with a violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

Not nessisarily. The theory that all the mass and energy in the universe comes from outside the universe would actually be supported by the first law. If the all matter in the universe could not be created here, yet it is here, it must able to be created, just not here.

T
K
O

So tell me about this supernatural place you have postulated.

I've postulated nothing supernatural.

Ok, sorry for the mistake. Maybe I'm using words in an unusual way (from the dictionary)

from http://www.answers.com/topic/supernatural

Quote:
supernatural(sū'pər-năch'ər-əl)

adj.

Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.

from http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/supernatural

Quote:
supernatural
One entry found.

supernatural

Main Entry: su·per·nat·u·ral
Pronunciation: \ˌsü-pər-ˈna-chə-rəl, -ˈnach-rəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature
Date: 15th century
1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe

2 a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/supernatural

Quote:
su·per·nat·u·ral (spr-nchr-l)
adj.
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces

What do YOU call it when you postulate another realm of existence which is apart from our universe, and is not bounded by the natural laws of our universe?

Did I postulate that the bounds of nature ended at our universe?

You said that the 1st Law of Thermodynamics did not prohibit the creation of matter in the place you postulated.

So I'd have to say , yes, it appears you DID say that.

Unless I missed your meaning. Please clarify if I did.

I did not say anything of the sort. How many times must you be reminded that you don't understand the laws of science very well? I've reminded forth graders to keep their shoes tied less.

I've never postualted that the bounds of the nature ended at our universe, no matter what you wish I stated.

T
K
O

Ok, sorry for the mistake.

Well then, tell me about this place outside the universe where the 1st Law of Thermodynamics doesn't prohibit the creation of matter.

How do you know it exists, and what else do you know about it?

Like scientists before me, I can only theorize.

Like previous scientists with the discovery of subatomic particles, the prediction of their existance takes place long before the actual discovery of them.

I predict that outside of the domain of our universe, by laws of nature yet to be discovered, energy in different forms can be created from nothing or potentially phased into existance. The potential for mulitple universes additionally exists, and the potential for one universe to exchange energy or mass with another universe is additionally plausible.

Oh, ok sorry.

I had always thought that scientific theories were based on evidence.

What evidence do you have that ANY place outside of the universe exists?

And what evidence do you have that it is exempt from ANY of the scientific laws that govern our universe?

Does 'I can't explain this' qualify as evidence?

If we say 'we can't explain how matter got here unless it was created in a place outside the universe where scientific laws don't apply', does that amount to evidence?

As I explained citing the example of sub-atomic particles, and their discovery. I believe the evidence will be discovered.........

I believe that further research will lead to the discovery of what exists outside of the domain of our universe..........

'Will be' , eh?

Well, you have stated your 'belief' eloquently.

Since there is no evidence you can cite now to support this, is it scientific to believe this?

0 Replies

RL is correct, the "Standard Hypotheses " includes most all of the Initiation of the Cosmos . Hypotheses can be very close to theories but as long as there are data and evidence that do not support the hypotheses, it is not a theory.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

RL is correct, the "Standard Hypotheses " includes most all of the Initiation of the Cosmos . Hypotheses can be very close to theories but as long as there are data and evidence that do not support the hypotheses, it is not a theory.

I think TKO meant to use the word "hypothesize" instead of "theorize" and that's what has RL's panties in a bunch.

I know that TKO wasn't talking about his own scientific theory but he made the mistake that so many of us have made which is a 'loose' use of the english language when trying to respond quickly to RL's garbage. RL then of course will pounce on that loose verbiage and rail off 4 pages of CRAP having nothing to do with the topic.

TKO, if you would choose to recant your use of the word "theorize" in your post and correct it to be "hypothesize" maybe we can nip this at the bud.

0 Replies

No problem. Hypothesis seems more fitting. Give it time, and research, the data will continue to converse on BB, and evolution.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

No problem. Hypothesis seems more fitting. Give it time, and research, the data will continue to converse on BB, and evolution.

T
K
O

There you go RL, does this satisify you?

0 Replies

Again, Deist, since you have no evidence to support your hypothesis, is it scientific to 'believe' it, as you have said you do?

Or are you simply stating your faith?

That is unless you really DO have scientific evidence that there exists somewhere outside of our universe a 'place' where the 1st Law of Thermodynamics does not prohibit matter from being created[/i]...........

I think that is generally how you stated the hypothesis, isn't it?

Basically a supernatural place, although you can't seem to bring yourself to use the actual word.

But what else would one call a place which is not part of the natural order (universe) and where scientific laws don't apply?

0 Replies

Just to summarize, so that others can catch up:

We have overwhelming scientific evidence that the universe exists.

Scientific law (1st Law/Conservation) prohibits the universe from being created. (i.e. it is not possible for the universe to have formed using natural processes.)

Therefore, the universe was formed then using a supernatural (i.e. not natural) process or act.

----------------------------------------

The only alternative to this that has been put forth so far is that the universe (matter) was NEVER created (i.e . did not need to be created) because it is eternally existent.

Scientific law (2nd Law/Entropy) indicates that matter will, over time, become more and more disordered. Energy becomes less and less available for useful work.

The universe cannot have existed eternally since entropy has not taken the expected toll.

Therefore if the universe were eternal, it maintains a degree of order that is in defiance of scientific law.

---------------------------------

Hyper-naturalists are on the horns of a dilemma.

The 1st Law is on one side, the 2nd Law on the other.

But many of them will just look at the evidence of the universe in existence today and say, 'aaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh where's yer evidence?'

Like a broken record.

0 Replies

Just to summarize so other can laugh. RL goes on to show his total ignorance of anything that doesn't fit into his own dogmatic views of the world.

He doesn't understand science so can not accept ideas such as the laws of thermodynamics did not exist at the BB as there were no time or space in which these laws could operate.

That the theory is well developed and even uses this fact that these laws did not immediately exist in the quick changing conditions at the earliest stages of creation along with a second point, the unusual stability of the proton, to explain the existence of the universe.

These "LAWS" are not absolute even now in the sense of statutorily certitude; even though it has been pointed out to him that his favorite law to misuse (the second law of thermodynamics) is statistical in nature.

That if these laws are absolute the creation of virtual particle pairs could not take place and our calculations at the QM level which often rely on them as intermediate steps would not be able to predict the magnetic moment of the neutron (for example) to over 20 decimal places; which of course they can.

That you get the picture.

You want to have some fun; here is a list of questions he is quite incapable of answering but very capable of ignoring or picking terms upon which to obfuscate.

So here we go oh great one

Exactly how many conservation laws are there?

Are all forces bounded by the same laws, if not, which force is bounded by which of the laws?

Do these laws operate differently at the quantum level than at the level that classical physics describes?

And the eternal question:
If you are right and all the physicists in the world are wrong how come we don't see your papers in The Physical Review Letters explaining the errors in all the other published papers?

Some continue, for their own reasons, to interact with this fool, others like myself stop by occasionally to laugh or to demonstrate the continued drivel he spouts, others have just moved on.

ROFLMAO!
Laughing

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know