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

And you have been on topic when baddog?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

And you have been on topic when baddog?

Hey hey - don't yell at the messenger. Very Happy

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Wolfie,

Even a child could tell you that you seem to hold contradictory positions :

'the laws of physics don't apply to a singularity'

and

'we KNOW what the singularity consisted of. we've calculated it using the laws of physics'

Look, I told you full well that I'm not a physics major so it's possible that I used the wrong words. All I know is that...

If you use the Theory of General Relativity, which the Big Bang Theory is based on, to extrapolate the early conditions of the Universe, you will get a singularity. This is like using Hooke's Law to extrapolate the conditions of a spring that is stretched to infinite distances.

General Relativity predicts the existence of a singularity near the beginning of the Universe. However, as the laws of physics breaks down near the beginning of the Universe, it is debatable what is at the beginning of the Universe. Therefore, you cannot say that the Laws of Thermodynamics apply to the beginning of the Universe, which is what I was getting at.

I told you full well that I'm not well versed in physics, so it is inevitable that if you ask hard physics questions, you might get no answers out of me or answers that may not be entirely correct. Either you don't understand this or you're a conniving little sneak who's using this information to try and get me to say something stupid. Frankly, I think it's the latter and I also think that it is unfortunate that your plan seemed to have worked.

Furthermore, you ignore the fact that in my last post lengthy post, I found out that the Laws of Thermodynamics are not universal. They do not apply within General Relativity, because GR talks about... well... relativity and the Laws of Thermodynamics do not apply equally to all frames of reference. The Laws of Thermodynamics, in other words, are part of classical physics, which breaks down near the speed of light!

Regardless, you still haven't provided evidence. You've provided speculation, which I pointed out is wrong and based on false assumptions. That you wish to argue the finer details of physics, instead of addressing the point that your initial "evidence" is flawed, is very telling of your position i.e. your house is built on a foundation of sand.

Also...

real life wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Likewise Canis are all dog-like animals, yet are you saying that the wolf and coyote aren't different species? They both have muzzles, pointed ears, tails, four legs and fur. So they must be the same species.

Can they interbreed?

Not all members of the Canis genus can interbreed. The wolf and coyote, as you should know (due to your loaded question), can interbreed. But wolf and fox cannot. This depends on their chromosome numbers. If they share similar chromosome numbers, they can interbreed, therefore whether they can interbreed or not is not a good criteria of whether something is a species or not, a point that (if the loaded question you asked is anything to judge by) you don't quite understand.

American bison and cattle are different species, yet they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Yet you'd be hard pressed to say that they're the same species, as they don't even belong to the same genus.

But then again, I'm no zoologist, so maybe I'm wrong, although I'm pretty sure that Bos taurus (cow) and Bison bison (American bison) aren't the same species.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

American bison and cattle are different species, yet they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Yet you'd be hard pressed to say that they're the same species, as they don't even belong to the same genus.

But then again, I'm no zoologist, so maybe I'm wrong, although I'm pretty sure that Bos taurus (cow) and Bison bison (American bison) aren't the same species.

If it's true they can interbreed, this is a major point.

Thanks Wolf
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
American bison and cattle are different species, yet they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Yet you'd be hard pressed to say that they're the same species, as they don't even belong to the same genus.

But then again, I'm no zoologist, so maybe I'm wrong, although I'm pretty sure that Bos taurus (cow) and Bison bison (American bison) aren't the same species.

If it's true they can interbreed, this is a major point.

Thanks Wolf
K
O

They can interbreed, although if you do it buffalo bull with domestic cow, it doesn't work. Well, it does work, but three out of four calves die. They tried it the other way, but they got sterile offspring. Apparently, it took three generations to breed reproduction back in.

Quite why, I don't know.

Of course, that's the Cattalo.

Apparently, some Montana rancher created a Beefalo. Quite how, I don't know either.

There's also the issue with ants. I do believe that ants produce sterile female offspring, only when the eggs are fertilised, which makes a mockery out of RL's purely sex-based definition of species. According to his definition, worker ants are a different species from the queen ant.

0 Replies

The definition of the word species is flexible depending on whether it's used in taxonomy or cladistics.

Also the ability to interbreed is not an absolute characteristic of species assignment.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
So, you are NOT sticking with the topic of the thread then. You are attempting to widen the discussion rather than keep it narrow and on topic.

Duh.. that is what we have repeatedly said. You won't deal with the topic but insist on bringing up other issues to obfuscate you inability to deal with the topic.

Can you show how discussion of the BB is not related to discussion of the origin of the universe? No, you can't.

Creation is the origin of the universe by supernatural means.

A discussion of why the universe could not originate by any other means , i.e. natural means , is certainly on topic.

A discussion of the fact that there is NO evidence of the universe beginning by natural means is also on topic.

Now , if you can show that all the matter/energy of the universe CAN be created by natural means, or show that there IS in fact evidence that the 'singularity' of BB lore was actually a naturally occurring phenomenon.........

......by all means do so, and we can resume.

:wink:

0 Replies

real life wrote:

real life wrote:
parados wrote:
So, you are NOT sticking with the topic of the thread then. You are attempting to widen the discussion rather than keep it narrow and on topic.

Duh.. that is what we have repeatedly said. You won't deal with the topic but insist on bringing up other issues to obfuscate you inability to deal with the topic.

Can you show how discussion of the BB is not related to discussion of the origin of the universe? No, you can't.

Creation is the origin of the universe by supernatural means as related in the bible.

A discussion of why the universe could not originate by any other means , i.e. natural means , is certainly on topic.

A discussion of the fact that there is NO evidence of the universe beginning by natural means is also on topic.

Now , if you can show that all the matter/energy of the universe CAN be created by natural means, or show that there IS in fact evidence that the 'singularity' of BB lore was actually a naturally occurring phenomenon.........

......by all means do so, and we can resume.

:wink:

You left out some rather important words real life which I put back in for you and made them large enough you can't ignore them.

The BB is NOT related in the bible so your argument is proven false. Any atttempt to bring in the BB without showing where it is related in the bible is required before you can continue with the BB.

0 Replies

The universe came into existence by the action of a unique and powerful entity of unknown composition and unknown origin. Admittedly, this cannot be proven to have ever existed.

This entity was not subject to scientific laws of this universe. This is because scientific law came into existence when the universe was created, as did Time/Space.

There is no way to prove this empirically since obviously no one was there; and furthermore, the laws of science ( with which we would normally investigate) do not apply to this entity anyway.

Now, given that the above description could be referring either to the BB (as proposed by some) or to creation, tell me again why one is 'scientific' and the other is not.

0 Replies

That still doesn't explain where the BB is in the bible real life.

If you want to discuss the BB as part of creationism then you have to show where it is part of the bible since creationism is the creation of the world as related in the bible.

0 Replies

I've never said the BB is in the Bible, parados.

I've never said the BB is part of creationism.

Hello?

0 Replies

In which case, you having introduced the topic of the "Big Bang" was as pointless as every thing else that you post.

So, any proof for creationism so far?

I thought not.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The universe came into existence by the action of a unique and powerful entity of unknown composition and unknown origin. Admittedly, this cannot be proven to have ever existed.

Why?

Quote:

This entity was not subject to scientific laws of this universe.
This is because scientific law came into existence when the universe was created, as did Time/Space.

There is no way to prove this empirically since obviously no one was there; and furthermore, the laws of science ( with which we would normally investigate) do not apply to this entity anyway.

Now, given that the above description could be referring either to the BB (as proposed by some) or to creation, tell me again why one is 'scientific' and the other is not.

Quite easily.

The Big Bang Theory makes testable predictions that you can actually test for. We can actually search for the aftermath of the Big Bang e.g. the cosmic microwave background. We can actually predict the existence of the singularity using the Theory of General Relativity.

You cannot do so with Creation.

For example, Evolution states that if an organism gains a mutation that gives it a decided advantage over those organisms without a mutation, then those with the mutation will survive and propogate said mutation e.g. bacteria with an antibiotic resistance gene like the neomycin resistance gene.

It's testable. Put a neomycin resistance gene in a bacteria and then put it in a neomycin rich environment. See what happens. If the bacteria with the gene survives, Evolution's prediction is found to be true and that counts as one piece of evidence for it. If the bacteria without the gene survives, then Evolution's prediction is false, and that coutns as one piece of evidence against it.

Now try the same thing with Creationism. Oh, wait, you can't, because Creationism makes no testable predictions regarding this. Everything that Creationism states is a tautology.

Bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex? Well, that's proof that God designed it. Bacterial flagellum isn't irreducibly complex (as is the case)? Well, that's proof that God cobbled it together from various different already existing components.

Take, for example, the Omphalos hypothesis, which argues that for the world to be functional, God must have created the Earth with mountains and canyons, trees with growth rings, that all suggest the Earth was mature. How is it testable? It's not even a real hypothesis! You can't test for it. The "hypothesis" even states you can't test it.

Now I'll sit back and wait as you attempt some mental gymnastics and attempt to try and prove that science isn't scientific, whilst not providing any evidence or proof for your position.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

real life wrote:
This entity was not subject to scientific laws of this universe.
This is because scientific law came into existence when the universe was created, as did Time/Space.

There is no way to prove this empirically since obviously no one was there; and furthermore, the laws of science ( with which we would normally investigate) do not apply to this entity anyway.

Now, given that the above description could be referring either to the BB (as proposed by some) or to creation, tell me again why one is 'scientific' and the other is not.

Quite easily.

The Big Bang Theory makes testable predictions that you can actually test for. We can actually search for the aftermath of the Big Bang e.g. the cosmic microwave background. We can actually predict the existence of the singularity using the Theory of General Relativity.

You claim that scientific principles can predict or prove that a 'singularity' existed, but then you also admit that a 'singularity' would not be subject to scientific principles.

You can't have it both ways, wolf.

The 'singularity' of BB lore is, in essence, a 'supernatural' explanation of the origin of the universe. If the laws of science don't apply to your singularity, and you have no scientific evidence it ever existed, what else is it but supernatural?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

You claim that scientific principles can predict or prove that a 'singularity' existed, but then you also admit that a 'singularity' would not be subject to scientific principles.

You can't have it both ways, wolf.

Well, you'll have to wait for a reply for this. I'm still researching the concept and getting my head around it. As I said, I'M NOT A PHYSICS MAJOR, so it's going to take some time.

However, I can reply to the following:

Quote:

The 'singularity' of BB lore is, in essence, a 'supernatural' explanation of the origin of the universe. If the laws of science don't apply to your singularity, and you have no scientific evidence it ever existed, what else is it but supernatural?

Supernatural is defined as being outside the natural world. The singularity at one point was the natural world and also exists within black holes. Perhaps now you're going to argue that there's no evidence for black holes?

Notwithstanding there's actual mathematical proof for the existence of singularities. There is no mathematical proof for Creationism or your God.

EDIT: Okay, so I did some further researching and it would appear that I was entirely wrong about the singularity. Apparently, the Theory of General Relativity predicts the existence of a singularity but that the singularity is evidence of a breakdown in General Relativity. In other words, GR breaks down the closer you get to an infinite density. GR predicts a singularity in the same way Hooke's Law predicts a singularity where a spring that is stretched to an infinite length will have infinite tension.

Thing is, now I understand what the Theory of Everything search is all about. The Theory of Everything will unite general relativity and quantum mechanics, which would help solve the problem of what happened at the very beginning of the Universe.

Which would mean, RL, you've got your work cut out for you. In order to prove your position you now have to rally not against the Big Bang Theory, but also against String Theory, Causal dynamical triangulations, quantum Einstein gravity, quantum graphity and internal relativity.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
real life wrote:
This entity was not subject to scientific laws of this universe.
This is because scientific law came into existence when the universe was created, as did Time/Space.

There is no way to prove this empirically since obviously no one was there; and furthermore, the laws of science ( with which we would normally investigate) do not apply to this entity anyway.

Now, given that the above description could be referring either to the BB (as proposed by some) or to creation, tell me again why one is 'scientific' and the other is not.

Quite easily.

The Big Bang Theory makes testable predictions that you can actually test for. We can actually search for the aftermath of the Big Bang e.g. the cosmic microwave background. We can actually predict the existence of the singularity using the Theory of General Relativity.

You claim that scientific principles can predict or prove that a 'singularity' existed, but then you also admit that a 'singularity' would not be subject to scientific principles.

You can't have it both ways, wolf.

The 'singularity' of BB lore is, in essence, a 'supernatural' explanation of the origin of the universe. If the laws of science don't apply to your singularity, and you have no scientific evidence it ever existed, what else is it but supernatural?

So let me get this straight - if one part of the universe acts differently than another part then that means that science doesn't work?

Because a singularity doesn't have the same scientific rules as normal space doesn't mean it can't be described scientifically or that it isn't natural.

You argument is analogous to saying science can't show that ice melts at 0F because iron doesn't act the same way. String theory and quantum theory explain things differently from Newton. Newtonian physics works for most of our physical world but there are anomalies that it can't explain.

This is similar to the recently discovered memristor. The 3 electrical component types seemed to work for just about everything but there were some anamolies that theory said would be something else, a fourth component. Google memristor

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
real life wrote:
This entity was not subject to scientific laws of this universe.
This is because scientific law came into existence when the universe was created, as did Time/Space.

There is no way to prove this empirically since obviously no one was there; and furthermore, the laws of science ( with which we would normally investigate) do not apply to this entity anyway.

Now, given that the above description could be referring either to the BB (as proposed by some) or to creation, tell me again why one is 'scientific' and the other is not.

Quite easily.

The Big Bang Theory makes testable predictions that you can actually test for. We can actually search for the aftermath of the Big Bang e.g. the cosmic microwave background. We can actually predict the existence of the singularity using the Theory of General Relativity.

You claim that scientific principles can predict or prove that a 'singularity' existed, but then you also admit that a 'singularity' would not be subject to scientific principles.

You can't have it both ways, wolf.

The 'singularity' of BB lore is, in essence, a 'supernatural' explanation of the origin of the universe. If the laws of science don't apply to your singularity, and you have no scientific evidence it ever existed, what else is it but supernatural?

So let me get this straight - if one part of the universe acts differently than another part then that means that science doesn't work?

Please do get it straight. Respond to something I said, not to something I didn't say.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Thing is, now I understand what the Theory of Everything search is all about. The Theory of Everything will...........

Which would mean, RL, you've got your work cut out for you........

Well, when you have a Theory of Everything to present, then we'll talk about it and see who's got their work cut out for them.

0 Replies

How about you actually present something, besides the ridiculous ramblings of magical crap that constantly and uselessly pour out?

0 Replies

reality is a figment of your own imagination created mainly by illusions of the observers own mind, nothing exists but you, ever wonder how you got this far without kicking the bucket? simple its your reality possibly a shared reality, nether the less just an illusion created in empty nothingness .....

0 Replies

real life wrote:

[
Please do get it straight. Respond to something I said, not to something I didn't say.
.

I did respond to something you said..

You said this..

Quote:

The 'singularity' of BB lore is, in essence, a 'supernatural' explanation of the origin of the universe. If the laws of science don't apply to your singularity, and you have no scientific evidence it ever existed, what else is it but supernatural?

String theory applies to the BB.

Are you arguing that string theory is NOT science?

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know