A neutral thread about big bang vs creation (at least by intention)

Why are you catching all the fish and I can't get a bite

Except that a Creationist worldview requires you to dispense with logic, information, math, physics, etc. You cannot possibly project any tests that are truly scientific with sucjh a view.
It was Pope Benedict who called the Universe an"intelligent project"
How smart is the universe after all Well, as if we understood its size and age, and based upon the interactions between the "Stuff" of the voids and matter, Lloy said that the universe has been responsible for 1X10^122 discrete operations since the Big BAng. Pretty smart. Is that smart enough to evolve itself and life over the 13.8 BILLION YEARS since it cranked up?

When looked at as a series of actions using a 1 and 0 as "Yes or No" the worldview of Creationism tries to claim incredulity that such a vast universe can slef create and evolve. Their argument is based upon ascribing science and evolution as "random". WHen we look at the amount of actions as typical numerical ones, each successive action "Yes or No" LIMITS additional successive actions. SO the trail fo the formation of heavy elements is already pre decided by first forming all that Hydrogen is the initial BB. Once the heavy elements are assempled, nucleation is a "answerable why" because we can understand the why gold runs with quartz or that iron occurs in roughly 6 forms.

As Cyracuz correctly said, science is the "doin the math" and conducting the really boring years of experiments to understand some of the most simple of the interactions between elements and molecules. ALL these actions (and we call them re-actions) are going on now and we can see and understand them if we take the time. When I understand the HOW of the reactions , I can retrace their history 13.8 billion years and slowly deduce a reasonable "why" Its not hard. (Im not saying that its always right because we are tossing out old rules and equations almost daily).
Creationism does not have that capability, no matter what some recent wags have stated in other threads. A Creationist can tag onto a scientific finding and claim it as his own merely by saying "me too". REALLY?. That is fraud and is usually uncovered when most Creationists cannot make any predictions at all because they try to substitute format for substance.

I herein pose a question that we should be considereing in the "light" of some very recent science. Two labs have recreated the neutrino that moves at 1.3 times the speed of light (this is still being checked and rechecked and reviewed). Think of the consequences to cosmology when it is found that mass can move faster than "c".
FAscinating No?

Creationism suffers from (and makes its biggest claims based on ) TOTAL IGNORANCE OF WHAT ITS EVEN SAYING.
I mean, if the universal intelligence was really out there, why does it take a two and three part process to make heavy elements from the archean hydrogen bomb? We can understand the process and the wonder of the pure action /reaction that chemistry and physics can predict that Creationism has no idea about. Whenever you hear the Creationist arguments (2LOT, order of "creation") I always have to muse whether they are familiar with ros sig line "I dont care if you believe it, just understand it"

Really fine thread, Cyracuz (and all the rest of you). For now, just listening in.

Except that you are speaking of creationists and creationism, I mentioned no such thing.
Science does indeed do the heavy lifting involved in telling us how the universe behaves, but it has not answered the question of creation or not.
I've no intention of discussing religion nor creationism, the truth is all our knowledge comes from within our existence here within the cosmos.
Is it possible that the universe came into being spontaneously? Sure it is, but that doesn't prove it did.
Is it necessary for there to be a creator? I don't know, but science doesn't know either.
Please don't confuse religious drivel with my position on whether or not the Universe was created, or simply occurred.

your reply is adequate but still I don´t see how come one can make any kind of argument for the Universe "spontaneously" coming to be...what the hack is meant with "spontaneous" ? that it has no cause ? certainly only that which always was can be said not having a cause, and secondly one must be careful with what one means when we say that the Universe came to be spontaneously only because its previous possible state was not in the form of matter...can it be said that energy did n´t existed to ? If it was the case that a perfect harmonic state of energy existed then matter and the big bang would never had occurred and even if such was the case the state of affairs of reality would not equal nothingness has Hawking's carelessly seems to suggest...not making by any means the defence of creationism which to my view is absurd but making the case for a spontaneous emergence of Cosmos is a poor soup of words...one should not counter bullshit with more bullshit !

Good point, even a spontaneous universe seems to require some ingredients.
We are mired in the dilemma of cause and effect, perhaps impossible for the human mind to grasp either ultimate cause or ultimate effect.
If there is in fact, nothing beyond this existence, then there is, in fact, nothing.
When this life is over, then it will never have existed.

...I know what you meant in there, but you see...beyond this existence there is always matter and or at least energy, not nothingness...thus whatever has existed MUST/HAS always been true to exist !

...just like nothingness, as an absolute, cannot give rise to something, equally something cannot turn into nothingness...

Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

As long as there is an observer, at least.
It appears as though it all exists in an indeterminate state in the absence of observation. The act of observation may force reality to take the shape it does.

....not arguing what an "observer" can particularly mean, even if so, indefinite or not something must exist...

...secondly when we use the term indefinite state of affairs we are referring to what we can observe of a phenomena and not to the actual "thing" itself...

...I personally find it very hard to believe that something is indefinite...maybe something, in its several definite states, cannot present a definite function to us until we observe it, which is quite different...but then, just maybe...

It starts to get pretty weird at this point, we've been here before, we are down to the information part again, the observer gives the information meaning.
You can encrypt the info on a computer such that it is indeterminate and meaningless without the proper observer.
... can we be sure that an observer, equipped differently from ourselves, wouldn't perceive an entirely different reality?
After all, we create machines which interpret electrical signals quite differently.
.... that doesn't describe indefinite though...

The point is that science really doesnt care. This very topic is so not even relevant . (Sorry but its the Creationists and Creationism that over- uses the code word ). Its like EInsteins god, or Darwins or Hubbells.

Creationists always duck the entire issue when presented with more than the simplest of facts.
The role that science plays only begins a few nanoseconds after the expansion of the dense hot mass. (Or what you call the Big Bang). Its at this point that start the initial tracks of evidence about WHAT and HOW it happened.
The WHY , to me, is answered with "cause thats the way elemenst and energy react ".

You cant slide away and say that youre not speaking of Creationism, your very topic presents the poles of certain worldviews. One, allows the search for evidence and conclusions based upon the evidence

The other is a tale that tries to present itself despite what evidence and deductive reasoning conclude.

what have you got against genetics?

Agreed, science doesn't need to care.



That's a difference in our mindsets, my impulse is to ask why they react that way. I don't see anything wrong with either mindset.



But I'm not speaking of creationism, I'm merely allowing the possible existence of a creator, Einsteins god.
There's a huge difference between what creationists do and what I'm willing to believe. Deductive reasoning pretty much reduces religious explanations to drivel, but I don't see where it rules out the possibility of an creator.

Nothing in particular, I doubt they're eternal though.

I think there are different uses of the term, "why". Some of them are connected by inference to "how". Others are anthropomorphically speculative. The particular usage I was referring to was the one implied by the large cosmological super-WHY that Cyracuz seems to be addressing in this thread.

"Genetic memory" is only now being evaluated for many such things which make up the ego and the id. Im a sucker for all these "Bridey Murphy" stories. Within the last 30 years, weve put lots of flesh on the bones of what our genetic component is and what its made of and how such things as epigenetic "mempries" or even "Lamarkian style changes" are manifest in the phenotype.

I don't know if you're being willfully obtuse, or if you just missed the point. We were talking about the "why" of the very existence of the cosmos, the "why are we here" question. Sure, you can come up with a list of simple-minded questions which make why "fun." They wou't be what we were talking about, though.

The problem is that most of you are unable to make the connections of similitude. The why's of biology are the same ones of cosmology.
Please dont attempt to act as the arbiter of what I do or dont "Get".
I know that you are a bit challenged in mathematics and quantitation but if we look at all the field equations of all the 5 basic forces (as well as the forces of chemical bonding ) , They re all basically the same format and the concept of similitude is a concept that first year engineering students learn to manipulate. We can describe situations in one media in terms of forces and reactions in another.

Thats why its fun. Its probably something youll never experience, cause its derivative not cumulative.

Fine. Don't tell me what questions of "why" are or are not fun. You sure can do the pompous jackass to a "T." Your fullshit line about "quantitation" and what i am or am not "challenged" about was pathetic given that you didn't finish the sentence--it's a sentence fragment. None of the bullshit you followed it with has any relevance to the question of "why we are here." Others may not agree with me, but my response is that it's simple human conceit to believe that's a relevant question.

It's hilarious to see you sneer at someone else on the basis of cumulative or derivative. Do me a favor, you jumped up clown--don't comment on my posts and i won't comment on yours.

My , arent we the bearer of Christmas Joy.

Please dont bust any gaskets on my behalf. However, should we be attempting to hand out a first prize in pomposity, I think youve retired that one .

AS far as an incomplete sentence, I think maybe youre lacking in Reading Comp. It makes perfect sense to me. Mayahps ypou didnt catch the periods?



Maybe if I go a bit slower youll catch up. When ALL physical realms have field equations (basic descriptive equations).
The fact is, ALL these equations are pretty much describing the ame relationshoips with the world, mass, eenergy, distance, the force involved, and a big Constant of proportionality.

We can use the same laws (like Ficks law) to describe reaction pleiochroism in Supernova. These reaction rings follow basic tools that we use in wet chemiostry. Understanding the very small is leading to better understandings of the very large, and processes of "Creation" are slowly being understood so well that now, I understand, we pretty much know what went on a few nanoseconds after the BB.

I dont attack anyoby unless he starts with me first, I considered "deliberately obtuse" as a slur. So watch yer own mouth sasquatch.