ForumGarden

Pahu;1493715 wrote: Not at all. If the universe did not have a beginning, which you are implying, that means it has always existed. But that notion conflicts with the facts of science. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred.




OK, Back to the Dictionary. If you investigate Entropy, you will find that the concept of entropy applies to an isolated, or closed system. So, then, what evidence do you have to suggest that the universe is such a system? And since we have no idea just what the universe really is, or the limits of it, it seems rather presumptuous of us to decide what limits might be imposed on it.



Pahu;1493715 wrote:

Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science.




Please do tell. What "Facts of science" are we contradicting?

Pahu;1493715 wrote:

Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.




That is all gobbledegook. Or as you like to put it, Evidence-free speculation.

Still waiting for evidence. Still waiting for Science.

Still, ...,

waiting,...,

Priceless! It really cracked me up.







*They don't make them like this anymore! *

DON’T TURN IT OFF WHEN OBAMA COMES ON, THERE’S ANOTHER ENDING.



https://www.youtube.com/embed/wrRTau5jusU

Wow! I am impressed.

We have a breakthrough.

Interesting how you cite the 1st & 2nd laws, as interpreted by Brown (as previously stated, there is much, much more to the laws than Brown cherry picks), but you actually Googled the 3rd law (congratulations - I didn't think you had it in you). However, something that I note is that nearly all of Brown's interpretation of the 2nd law is the misuse of the term "Entropy", and how if the Universe were to have been created from the Big Bang, then there would be zero entropy. This is where thing get interesting. Although you have pasted MOST of what the Wiki site said about the 3rd law, you failed to include the final few paragrahs:

The Nernst–Simon statement of the third law of thermodynamics concerns thermodynamic processes at a fixed, low temperature:

The entropy change associated with any condensed system undergoing a reversible isothermal process approaches zero as the temperature at which it is performed approaches 0 K.

Here a condensed system refers to liquids and solids. A classical formulation by Nernst (actually a consequence of the Third Law) is:

It is impossible for any process, no matter how idealized, to reduce the entropy of a system to its absolute-zero value in a finite number of operations.

Physically, the Nernst–Simon statement implies that it is impossible for any procedure to bring a system to the absolute zero of temperature in a finite number of steps.[3]


Evidence free assumptions? How about this?

True, but that is a far cry from the fact that before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.
You claim that before the Universe existed there was nothing. That is immediately an evidence free assumption. Nobody has any evidence for or against this claim. However, the logic of physics goes against it being so. The First Law is simply that Energy cannot be Created nor Destroyed, only transformed from one form into another. Even Brown admits that this much has been proven in experiments. Then he goes on to say that it was created. Therefore, when the laws are not convenient to his case - simple - change the laws - deny their validity. Change their meaning. The more probable explanation is that Energy exists & always has existed. In Theoretical Physics, even Time may be seen as a form of Energy as it has been shown to be valid as a variable in multiple nuclear formulae. Therefore, although there may not have been anything as you or I can perceive it, there was always Time (even your scriptures say that much). Now consider this. If you accept the condition that Time is a form of Energy (for which there is mathematical evidence), doesn't it also follow from the First Law that Time should also be transformable into other forms of Energy? It is generally accepted as a fact that the Universe is expanding, and it is also generally believed that the point of origin of this expansion is that of the Big Bang. The Big Bang is not defined as a physical nuclear / chemical explosion, but that of Time.

Energy is something that we know to exist. However, it is not possible to observe it. All we are able to observe is the effect it has on other things. For instance, we are fairly certain that Black Holes exist. Astronomers have even identified what they believe to be some - not because of what they CAN see, but because of what they CAN'T see. When there is a beam of light directly in front of you you don't see it unless there is something for it to reflect off, but you know it to be there.

Given that Time is a form of Energy, and that Matter is made from (and may be converted back to) Energy, then theoretically so long as there is Time there will always be Energy & Matter. The big question - more of Philosophy than of Physics, I suppose, is whether Time has a beginning or an end.

For once, rather than closing your mind to anything other than Brown says, put yourself in a position of asking yourself "What if...?" to some of the conditions above. None of the hypothetical situations are proven facts - even your initial statement of before anything existed there was nothing, which you base everything else on is not known to be a fact. It also contradicts what you have said previously. Many times before, when challenged about where God came from, you have replied that he was always there from the beginning of Time. Therefore you accept that before there was anything in the physical sense, there was always Time. If you believe that Time doesn't exist in that sense then you are claiming that God came into existence from nothing, and we're back to square one, where nothing can come of nothing. Just start with the concept that Time does exist, it always has existed, and always will exist (World without end, and all that). Accept the fact that Time is a variable in Theoretical Nuclear Physics as far as Matter / Energy conversion is concerned, and everything starts to make sense.

The problem with the Human mind is that we find it difficult to see any further than the 3 dimensions that we live in. Most of us accept that there is a 4th dimension (that of time) - Length, Breadth, Depth & When, but Physics have shown that there are many more dimensions, far beyond our own comprehension.

Volcanic Debris




Volcanoes eject almost a cubic mile of material into the atmosphere each year, on average.* At this rapid rate, about 10 times the entire volume of Earth’s sedimentary rock should be produced in 4.5 billion years. Actually, only about 25% of Earth’s sediments are of volcanic origin, and much greater volcanic activity existed in the past. No means have been proposed for removing or transforming all the missing volcanic sediments. Therefore, Earth’s sediments seem to be much younger than 4.5 billion years (a).

a. Ariel A. Roth, “Some Questions about Geochronology, Origins, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1986, pp. 75–76.

“It has been estimated that just four volcanoes spewing lava at the rate observed for ParicutÃ*n [a Mexican volcano that erupted in 1943] and continuing for five billion years could almost account for the volume of the continental crusts. Stansfield, p. 81.

Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown

Pahu;1493768 wrote:

Volcanic Debris




Volcanoes eject almost a cubic mile of material into the atmosphere each year, on average.�* At this rapid rate, about 10 times the entire volume of Earth’s sedimentary rock should be produced in 4.5 billion years. Actually, only about 25% of Earth’s sediments are of volcanic origin, and much greater volcanic activity existed in the past. No means have been proposed for removing or transforming all the missing volcanic sediments. Therefore, Earth’s sediments seem to be much younger than 4.5 billion years (a).

a. Ariel A. Roth, “Some Questions about Geochronology, Origins, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1986, pp. 75–76.

“It has been estimated that just four volcanoes spewing lava at the rate observed for Paricut�*n [a Mexican volcano that erupted in 1943] and continuing for five billion years could almost account for the volume of the continental crusts. Stansfield, p. 81.

Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown


More evidence free assertions.

Besides, Mr Roth is a zoologists, not a Geologist, or a volcanologist.

LarsMac;1493718 wrote: OK, Back to the Dictionary. If you investigate Entropy, you will find that the concept of entropy applies to an isolated, or closed system. So, then, what evidence do you have to suggest that the universe is such a system? And since we have no idea just what the universe really is, or the limits of it, it seems rather presumptuous of us to decide what limits might be imposed on it.





Please do tell. What "Facts of science" are we contradicting?



That is all gobbledegook. Or as you like to put it, Evidence-free speculation.

Still waiting for evidence. Still waiting for Science.

Still, ...,

waiting,...,


Still waiting

LarsMac;1493770 wrote: Still waiting


His "facts", of course, are Brown's unsubstantiated claims. He doesn't understand them, but if Brown says it, then it must be so. Pahu even has the evidence - his Holy Bible (In The Beginning, that is). He doesn't question anything. He never even attempts to verify it by cross referencing the claims, let alone try to find any contradictory evidence. He just accepts everything he says in blind obedience.

As you say, and as I have said previously, it is typical for Creationists to come up with some specialist qualification in some totally unrelated subject & use the letters to put across the impression that they are experts in the field they are spouting about. Brown has a PhD in Engineering (Metalwork). Yet he seems to believe that makes him some some sort of authority to challenge the rules of Quantum Physics, and even to rewrite / reinterpret the Laws of Thermodynamics. He has the mentality of a politician. If the law doesn't agree with what you want it to, simply change the law.

FourPart;1493775 wrote: His "facts", of course, are Brown's unsubstantiated claims. He doesn't understand them, but if Brown says it, then it must be so. Pahu even has the evidence - his Holy Bible (In The Beginning, that is). He doesn't question anything. He never even attempts to verify it by cross referencing the claims, let alone try to find any contradictory evidence. He just accepts everything he says in blind obedience.

As you say, and as I have said previously, it is typical for Creationists to come up with some specialist qualification in some totally unrelated subject & use the letters to put across the impression that they are experts in the field they are spouting about. Brown has a PhD in Engineering (Metalwork). Yet he seems to believe that makes him some some sort of authority to challenge the rules of Quantum Physics, and even to rewrite / reinterpret the Laws of Thermodynamics. He has the mentality of a politician. If the law doesn't agree with what you want it to, simply change the law.




QUANTUM




Can the universe come into existence from nothing?



Paul Davies writes: "...the application of quantum mechanics is normally restricted to atoms, molecules, and subatomic particles. Quantum effects are usually negligible for macroscopic objects. Recall that at the heart of quantum physics lies Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which states that all measurable quantities (e.g., position, momentum, energy) are subject to unpredictable fluctuations in their values. This unpredictability implies that the microworld is indeterministic: to use Einstein's picturesque phraseology, God plays dice with the universe. Therefore, quantum events are not determined absolutely by preceding causes. Although the probability of a given event (e.g., the radioactive decay of an atomic nucleus) is fixed by the theory, the actual outcome of a particular quantum process is unknown and, even in principle, unknowable.

“By weakening the link between cause and effect, quantum mechanics provides a subtle way for us to circumvent the origin-of-the-universe problem. If a way can be found to permit the universe to come into existence from nothing (emphasis mine) as the result of a quantum fluctuation, then no laws of physics would be violated. In other words, viewed through the eyes of a quantum physicist, the spontaneous appearance of a universe is not such a surprise, because physical objects are spontaneously appearing all the time--without well-defined causes--in the quantum microworld. The quantum physicist need no more appeal to a supernatural act to bring the universe into being than to explain why a radioactive nucleus decayed when it did." (Paul Davies, The Mind of God. N.Y.: Touchstone books, 1992)

The microworld is indeterministic, but in no way does it follow that quantum events are not determined absolutely by preceding causes. The link between cause and effect is in no way weakened and cannot be so weakened by science, at least without destroying the very possibility of science. And so there is no subtle way at all to circumvent the origin of the universe problem.

First, the nature of cause and effect is a metaphysical question, that is, a question for the philosophy of being. Science cannot question the principle of causality without threatening its very foundation. Nor can empiriological science begin to tell us what it means for one thing to cause another, that is, for something to cause or bring about an effect. As Hume demonstrated very clearly, from a strictly empirical point of view, cause and effect have no objective basis whatsoever. The cause and effect relationship is not perceived. It follows that either it is not real in the extramental sense, or there is a knowledge that is over and above sensation.

We would argue that there is a knowledge that is over and above sensation, namely intellection. Cause and effect is known, not perceived. All knowledge begins with the senses, but it does not end there; knowledge ends in intellection. This is so because knowledge begins and ends with real being.

To cause an effect is to impart being. And it is existential judgment that apprehends being. Now, from nothing comes nothing. For it is not possible to get being from non-being (nothing). And nothing is not a "potency", for "nothing" does not have "ability", and "ability" is a potentiality (an indeterminacy). Potentiality or ability is not nothing. It is intelligible—not in itself, but intelligible nonetheless. So it is not true that from nothing comes something. Nothing is nothing pure and simple. The universe, or anything for that matter, cannot have been the effect of nothing or non-being, for nothing simply "is not", and to effect is to impart being. But nothing has no being to impart, nor is it anything from which "is" may emerge.

Now, if there is nothing, then there is no fluctuation, quantum or otherwise. As Parmenides knew long ago, non-being or nothing is unthinkable. It cannot be made an object of thought. So if we refer to quantum fluctuation, we refer to something, not nothing. Furthermore, if quantum fluctuation is going to have any intelligible value whatsoever, there will have to be a subject of that fluctuation. What is it that is fluctuating?

Moreover, act proceeds from potency. But nothing reduces itself from potentiality to actuality except by something already in act. The act of all acts is the act of existing. But nothing can bring itself into being from non-being. In order to "bring itself into" anything, it would have to first exist or be. Activity (second act) presupposes a first act, that is, an existing being capable of acting. And not only is it not possible for potentiality to reduce itself to actuality absolutely, but also relatively. An already existing thing that is in potentiality to a certain mode of being cannot reduce itself to that actual mode of being. A thing cannot give to itself what it does not have, that is, what it is in potency to receive. If it could, it would have it actually and not potentially. But a cause imparts being or a mode of being to that which is in potentiality to receive that particular mode of being. For instance, what is potentially moving is made to be actually moving by something already in the act of moving. To deny this is as absurd as denying that nothing can bring itself into being. To reiterate, what is in potentiality towards a particular mode of being cannot impart to itself what it does not have, namely that particular mode of being, such as motion, a particular quantity, an accidental quality, etc. If it could impart a mode of being to itself that it does not have, then it is not true that it does not have it. And if it is not true that it does not have it, then it is not true that it is in potentiality towards it.

Physical objects may very well be spontaneously appearing all the time, but not knowing the cause is hardly the same thing as not having a cause. This is Cartesianism at its worst. For this would amount to an absolute identification of logical being with real being. But the fact is that physicists seek to know the cause of spontaneously appearing objects because they, as human beings who have pre-scientific knowledge, know that nothing cannot impart being; for nothing has no potentiality whatsoever, because potentiality is a mode of being. Facts are not good enough for scientists. They want reasoned facts. What is the reason for this fact? Not knowing the cause of something is no basis at all for concluding that there isn't one.

Moreover, scientific knowledge is precisely demonstrative knowledge. A conclusion is demonstrated, for instance, that there is no ether, or that we cannot know the position and velocity of an electron at the same time, or that space is curved, etc. But a demonstrated conclusion is an effect of a cause, namely the middle term of a syllogism. That is why a weakening of cause and effect can only weaken science, which depends upon an ability to draw conclusions. For instance, take William Harvey's (d. 1657) demonstration of the circulation of the blood:

A fluid of limited quantity kept in perpetual motion in one direction is moved circularly

The blood is such a fluid

Therefore, the blood is moved circularly.

The middle term in the above syllogism is A fluid of limited quantity kept in perpetual motion in one direction. So, we ask: What is the reason for concluding that the blood is moved circularly? The reason or cause (or the cause being/because) is the middle term. In other words, the answer is because any fluid of limited quantity kept in perpetual motion in one direction is moved circularly.

So, any weakening of cause and effect can only end in a weakening of the scientific process. Science is precisely a "knowing", and to know is to know reasoned facts or causes. To reason to a conclusion requires a knowledge of causes. For science is a search for causes, and conclusions of arguments proceed from causes (middle terms).

Davies argues that the quantum physicist need not appeal to a supernatural act to bring the universe into being. But it is this word "supernatural" that is a problem here. In a sense this is true, one need not appeal to a supernatural act. But it does not follow that one need not appeal to God, who is Ipsum Esse. For God is intimately involved in every natural process, because to cause an effect is to impart being, and God is the First Cause of all that is, because God's essence is to be. Beings do indeed cause effects, but not without the primal causality of that Being whose nature is to be. For nothing reduces itself from potentiality to actuality except by something already in act. We, as actually existing beings, can impart being upon that which is in potentiality to receive the particular mode of being in question, but none of us can bring something into being from nothing. A habens esse cannot surpass the very limits of its nature, and a thing acts according to its nature. But being (esse) is accidental, so to speak, that is, existence is outside of essence (with respect to those beings whose essence is not to be, but to be some kind of thing). There is a real distinction between essence and existence. So as a moving being I can impart motion upon another thing that is potentially moving, but in order to do that I must first be (for me to be actually moving requires that I first be), and so too the potentially moving thing that is in a state of potentiality. Throughout the motion by which I impart moving existence upon a thing, it is Ipsum Esse who must continue to preserve me and the moving thing being moved by me into existence, otherwise I cannot impart motion to the potentially moving thing. And so as a cause of an effect, I am never more than a secondary cause.

Moreover, change involves two terminals: the terminal from which (terminus a quo) a change commences, and a terminal towards which (terminus ad quem) the change moves and at which it terminates.

But nothing cannot be a terminus, because it is nothing. That is why creation (the bringing of something into being, by God, from nothing) is not change. The notion of creation from nothing, without God (Ipsum Esse) of course, leaves us with nothing. So, we have the spontaneous appearance of the universe from nothing, according to Davies. It cannot be a change, since nothing is not a terminus. And there is no cause to this spontaneous appearance. So there is a potentiality that is actualized, but it is not "somehow" actualized because there is no cause. We cannot ask "how" or "why". To ask "why" is to seek the cause, and there is no cause. But quantum fluctuation is put forth as an agent cause. This is inconsistent. So what then, is the existential status of this quantum fluctuation? What is it? If it is nothing, it cannot be the cause. If it is something, then the universe did not proceed from nothing. Fluctuation is also a term whose meaning, like the meanings of all our words, is derived from our pre-scientific experience. Something fluctuates. The word itself means "change". Fluctuation implies a substrate and a terminus a quo. Something is changing, and the terminus ad quem of that change is the end of the change. Now, is there a cause of this quantum fluctuation? If not, then we posit a change that is not caused, that is, a fulfillment or a realization (actualization) of a potentiality without a prior act. But this too would mean getting something from nothing. There is no cause of the fluctuation, and so we cannot seek to know why there was a fluctuation. Now, if nothing precedes the fluctuation (which is to say that the fluctuation has no substrate), then the fluctuation has nothing for its terminus a quo (for it has no substrate). But nothing cannot be the terminus a quo, because nothing means non-being. It is absurd to posit nothing as being a term "from which".

Finally, one can apply this type of irrationality to anything, that is, to any situation. What is to prevent a person, suspected of robbing a bank, from simply claiming that the money found in his apartment just spontaneously appeared? What grounds does anyone have for maintaining that such a notion is irrational on one level but not on another? In short, the notion of something coming from nothing is irrational and arbitrary.

Copyright © 1998-99 by Douglas P. McManaman. All Rights Reserved

http://fmmh.ycdsb.ca/teachers/F00027452 ... othing.htm

I fail to see what relevance that paste has. It is a valid quote from a reputable Quantum Physicist, explaining how something CAN come from nothing & that there is nothing 'Supernatural' about it. Then someone who is not qualified in anything tries to debunk it by using the existence of "God" as a 'fact' as evidence.

Douglas P. McManaman has no scientific credentials. He is merely a Catholic Deacon.

Furthermore the link at the bottom doesn't even work.

All that aside, you have clearly supported my point that you have no will of your own. no arguments of your own. All you can do is copy & paste.

Walt Brown is an evidence free speculator, masquerading as a scientist

That is a very interesting post, Pahu. I like it.

And philosophically, I can follow it very nicely. But, it all boils down to more of your "Evidence-free speculation" that you seem to abhor.

I have to say, that I am impressed that a YEC such as yourself would see fit to post it.

I have to point out that basically, Paul Davies' piece contradicts what you have been insisting on as far as the logic of the universe needing to have been created by God to exist. And of course non of this really supports the ideas of a young Earth proposed by Mr Brown and company.

I don't necessarily agree with McManaman, either, though he offers up some great food for discussion.

This is actually quite amazing. I think we have to keep in mind just how little we actually know about the Universe, as a whole. I mean we are constantly expanding our horizons, and so far, we only actually know a very small fraction of the whole.

Meanwhile, keep wondering.

No doubt that he will cherry pick pieces that he wants, interpret them the way he wants & then discard the rest as "Evidence Free Speculation" - just as he does with Walt Brown's famously cherry picked quote from the Father of Quantum Physics - Prof. Stephen Hawking.

FourPart;1493782 wrote: I fail to see what relevance that paste has. It is a valid quote from a reputable Quantum Physicist, explaining how something CAN come from nothing & that there is nothing 'Supernatural' about it. Then someone who is not qualified in anything tries to debunk it by using the existence of "God" as a 'fact' as evidence.

Douglas P. McManaman has no scientific credentials. He is merely a Catholic Deacon.

Furthermore the link at the bottom doesn't even work.

All that aside, you have clearly supported my point that you have no will of your own. no arguments of your own. All you can do is copy & paste.


He may not be a scientist, but isn't what he says true? Sorry about the link, it must have been discontinued. Here are the facts from a scientist:



QUANTUM SOMETHING/NOTHING?




Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates the cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing. For instance, Paul Davies writes:

“¦ spacetime could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition¦Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation¦Yet the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing.

But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing. Davies himself admitted on the previous page that his scenario ‘should not be taken too seriously.’

Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their ‘quantum vacuum’ is a lot of matter-antimatter potential—not ‘nothing’.

Also, I have plenty of theoretical and practical experience at quantum mechanics (QM) from my doctoral thesis work. For example, Raman spectroscopy is a QM phenomenon, but from the wavenumber and intensity of the spectral bands, we can work out the masses of the atoms and force constants of the bonds causing the bands. To help the atheist position that the universe came into existence without a cause, one would need to find Raman bands appearing without being caused by transitions in vibrational quantum states, or alpha particles appearing without pre-existing nuclei, etc.

If QM was as acausal as some people think, then we should not assume that these phenomena have a cause. Then I may as well burn my Ph.D. thesis, and all the spectroscopy journals should quit, as should any nuclear physics research.

Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat which appeared. This universe can't have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldn't have any properties until it actually came into existence.

IS CREATION BY GOD RATIONAL?

A last desperate tactic by skeptics to avoid a theistic conclusion is to assert that creation in time is incoherent. Davies correctly points out that since time itself began with the beginning of the universe, it is meaningless to talk about what happened ‘before’ the universe began. But he claims that causes must precede their effects. So if nothing happened ‘before’ the universe began, then (according to Davies) it is meaningless to discuss the cause of the universe’s beginning.

But the philosopher (and New Testament scholar) William Lane Craig, in a useful critique of Davies, pointed out that Davies is deficient in philosophical knowledge. Philosophers have long discussed the notion of simultaneous causation. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) gave the example of a weight resting on a cushion simultaneously causing a depression in it. Craig says:

“The first moment of time is the moment of God's creative act and of creation's simultaneous coming to be.

Some skeptics claim that all this analysis is tentative, because that is the nature of science. So this can’t be used to prove creation by God. Of course, skeptics can't have it both ways: saying that the Bible is wrong because science has proved it so, but if science appears consistent with the Bible, then well, science is tentative anyway.

A FINAL THOUGHT

The Bible informs us that time is a dimension that God created, into which man was subjected. It even tells us that one day time will no longer exist. That will be called "eternity." God Himself dwells outside of the dimension He created (2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2). He dwells in eternity and is not subject to time. God spoke history before it came into being. He can move through time as a man flips through a history book.

Because we live in the dimension of time, it is impossible for us to fully understand anything that does not have a beginning and an end. Simply accept that fact, and believe the concept of God's eternal nature the same way you believe the concept of space having no beginning and end—by faith—even though such thoughts put a strain on our distinctly insufficient cerebrum.

[Author: Jonathan Sarfati, Creation Ministries International. First published in: Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12(1):20-22, 1998.]

Who created God? • ChristianAnswers.Net

LarsMac;1493788 wrote: That is a very interesting post, Pahu. I like it.

And philosophically, I can follow it very nicely. But, it all boils down to more of your "Evidence-free speculation" that you seem to abhor.

I have to say, that I am impressed that a YEC such as yourself would see fit to post it.

I have to point out that basically, Paul Davies' piece contradicts what you have been insisting on as far as the logic of the universe needing to have been created by God to exist. And of course non of this really supports the ideas of a young Earth proposed by Mr Brown and company.

I don't necessarily agree with McManaman, either, though he offers up some great food for discussion.

This is actually quite amazing. I think we have to keep in mind just how little we actually know about the Universe, as a whole. I mean we are constantly expanding our horizons, and so far, we only actually know a very small fraction of the whole.

Meanwhile, keep wondering.


It is encouraging to see your thoughtful response. We should all continue seeking the truth.

Pahu;1493803 wrote: It is encouraging to see your thoughtful response. We should all continue seeking the truth.
I couldn't agree more. However, you seem to think that you have found it all in Brown & therefore don't continue to do any seeking.

There is one theory that before there was something there was nothing, and that nothing comes from nothing. First of all, Quantum Physics shows that not to be the case & that something CAN come from nothing. However, putting that aside, there is always the other view that there was never a time when there was nothing. Quantum Physics supports both theories as possibilities. Put quite simply, without further evidence one way or the other, no-one can ever know for certain. Science doesn't even take the dichotomy view that if it isn't one thing, then it must the the opposite, as it always accepts alternative explanations. It even accepts the faint possibility (albeit infinitely slight) of the existence of a God. Science only accepts something once it can provide evidence to support it. Quantum Physics has provided evidence. The Higgs Boson was considered only a Quantum Theory - a something to appear from nothing - until experiments were carried out & proved the theory. If an experiment can be carried out to prove the existence of God, then Science will accept that as well.

FourPart;1493924 wrote: I couldn't agree more. However, you seem to think that you have found it all in Brown & therefore don't continue to do any seeking.

There is one theory that before there was something there was nothing, and that nothing comes from nothing. First of all, Quantum Physics shows that not to be the case & that something CAN come from nothing. However, putting that aside, there is always the other view that there was never a time when there was nothing.


The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science.

Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.

Quantum Physics supports both theories as possibilities. Put quite simply, without further evidence one way or the other, no-one can ever know for certain. Science doesn't even take the dichotomy view that if it isn't one thing, then it must the the opposite, as it always accepts alternative explanations. It even accepts the faint possibility (albeit infinitely slight) of the existence of a God. Science only accepts something once it can provide evidence to support it. Quantum Physics has provided evidence. The Higgs Boson was considered only a Quantum Theory - a something to appear from nothing - until experiments were carried out & proved the theory. If an experiment can be carried out to prove the existence of God, then Science will accept that as well.




QUANTUM

SOMETHING from NOTHING?




Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates the cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing. For instance, Paul Davies writes:

“¦ spacetime could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition¦Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation¦Yet the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing.

But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing. Davies himself admitted on the previous page that his scenario ‘should not be taken too seriously.’

Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their ‘quantum vacuum’ is a lot of matter-antimatter potential—not ‘nothing’.

Also, I have plenty of theoretical and practical experience at quantum mechanics (QM) from my doctoral thesis work. For example, Raman spectroscopy is a QM phenomenon, but from the wavenumber and intensity of the spectral bands, we can work out the masses of the atoms and force constants of the bonds causing the bands. To help the atheist position that the universe came into existence without a cause, one would need to find Raman bands appearing without being caused by transitions in vibrational quantum states, or alpha particles appearing without pre-existing nuclei, etc.

If QM was as acausal as some people think, then we should not assume that these phenomena have a cause. Then I may as well burn my Ph.D. thesis, and all the spectroscopy journals should quit, as should any nuclear physics research.

Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat which appeared. This universe can't have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldn't have any properties until it actually came into existence.

IS CREATION BY GOD RATIONAL?

A last desperate tactic by skeptics to avoid a theistic conclusion is to assert that creation in time is incoherent. Davies correctly points out that since time itself began with the beginning of the universe, it is meaningless to talk about what happened ‘before’ the universe began. But he claims that causes must precede their effects. So if nothing happened ‘before’ the universe began, then (according to Davies) it is meaningless to discuss the cause of the universe’s beginning.

But the philosopher (and New Testament scholar) William Lane Craig, in a useful critique of Davies, pointed out that Davies is deficient in philosophical knowledge. Philosophers have long discussed the notion of simultaneous causation. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) gave the example of a weight resting on a cushion simultaneously causing a depression in it. Craig says:

“The first moment of time is the moment of God's creative act and of creation's simultaneous coming to be.

Some skeptics claim that all this analysis is tentative, because that is the nature of science. So this can’t be used to prove creation by God. Of course, skeptics can't have it both ways: saying that the Bible is wrong because science has proved it so, but if science appears consistent with the Bible, then well, science is tentative anyway.

A FINAL THOUGHT

The Bible informs us that time is a dimension that God created, into which man was subjected. It even tells us that one day time will no longer exist. That will be called "eternity." God Himself dwells outside of the dimension He created (2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2). He dwells in eternity and is not subject to time. God spoke history before it came into being. He can move through time as a man flips through a history book.

Because we live in the dimension of time, it is impossible for us to fully understand anything that does not have a beginning and an end. Simply accept that fact, and believe the concept of God's eternal nature the same way you believe the concept of space having no beginning and end—by faith—even though such thoughts put a strain on our distinctly insufficient cerebrum.

[Author: Jonathan Sarfati, Creation Ministries International. First published in: Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12(1):20-22, 1998.]

http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.html

Pahu;1493925 wrote: The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science.


As usual you are ignoring the fact that entropy is only applicable to a closed system. It is not, therefore it does not apply.

Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.


Wrong. You are still presuming something that no-one knows to be true, one way or the other. The Higgs project has proved that something can come from nothing, so that argument is moot. Secondly, you are still assuming that before there was something there was nothing. What evidence have you that this is the case? What evidence have you to show that there wasn't always something. The problem is that the human mind is, by its very nature, very limited in its understanding of multi dimensions & time. It assumes that something has to have a beginning, a middle & an end. Why should this be so? Just because the mind can't resolve it that doesn't mean it isn't the case. It is just as rational to consider that there was always something as to consider that before there was something there was nothing.



All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.


As I said, there is no evidence to prove that there wasn't always something. Therefore, it there always has been something there was no cause.

Time (an actual variable in Quantum Physics) has always existed. It is a variable as a form of energy. Energy & matter are interchangeable. Therefore Time is interchangeable with matter. Although Higgs has shown that something can come of nothing, it can also be viewed that it didn't come of nothing, but it came from Time.

The possibilities are endless. To claim that it wasn't 'A', therefore it has to be 'B' is truly arrogant & ignorant, as it claims knowledge that nobody in the world has access to.

River Sediments




More than 27 billion tons of river sediments enter the oceans each year. Probably the rate of sediment transport is diminishing as looser topsoil is removed and as erosion smooths out Earth’s terrain. Even if erosion has been constant, the sediments now on the ocean floor would have accumulated in only 30 million years. No process has been proposed which can remove 27 billion tons of ocean sediments each year. So, the oceans cannot be hundreds of millions of years old (a).

a. Stuart E. Nevins, “Evolution: The Ocean Says No! Symposium on Creation V (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975), pp. 77–83.

Roth, “Some Questions about Geochronology, pp. 69–71.

Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.



For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown

FourPart;1493933 wrote: As usual you are ignoring the fact that entropy is only applicable to a closed system. It is not, therefore it does not apply.


Why do you believe that? Here are the facts:

Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. There are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization. The other case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life.

The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.

I suggest that thermodynamic arguments are excellent when done properly, and the ‘open systems’ canard is anticipated. Otherwise I suggest

concentrating on information content. The information in even the simplest organism would take about a thousand pages to write out. Human beings have 500 times as much information as this. It is a flight of fantasy to think that undirected processes could generate this huge amount of information, just as it would be to think that a cat walking on a keyboard could write a book.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics: answers to critics - creation.com

Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

FourPart;1493933 wrote:

Wrong. You are still presuming something that no-one knows to be true, one way or the other. The Higgs project has proved that something can come from nothing, so that argument is moot. Secondly, you are still assuming that before there was something there was nothing. What evidence have you that this is the case?


It is self evident. Do you know of anything that does not have a beginning?

What evidence have you to show that there wasn't always something.


The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science.

Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.

The problem is that the human mind is, by its very nature, very limited in its understanding of multi dimensions & time.


Is there evidence such a thing exists?

It assumes that something has to have a beginning, a middle & an end. Why should this be so? Just because the mind can't resolve it that doesn't mean it isn't the case. It is just as rational to consider that there was always something as to consider that before there was something there was nothing.


Except such an idea is contrary to our experience and science.



As I said, there is no evidence to prove that there wasn't always something. Therefore, it there always has been something there was no cause.


Which defies science.

Time (an actual variable in Quantum Physics) has always existed. It is a variable as a form of energy. Energy & matter are interchangeable. Therefore Time is interchangeable with matter. Although Higgs has shown that something can come of nothing, it can also be viewed that it didn't come of nothing, but it came from Time.




QUANTUM

SOMETHING from NOTHING?




Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates the cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing. For instance, Paul Davies writes:

“¦ spacetime could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition¦Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation¦Yet the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing.

But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing. Davies himself admitted on the previous page that his scenario ‘should not be taken too seriously.’

Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their ‘quantum vacuum’ is a lot of matter-antimatter potential—not ‘nothing’.

Also, I have plenty of theoretical and practical experience at quantum mechanics (QM) from my doctoral thesis work. For example, Raman spectroscopy is a QM phenomenon, but from the wavenumber and intensity of the spectral bands, we can work out the masses of the atoms and force constants of the bonds causing the bands. To help the atheist position that the universe came into existence without a cause, one would need to find Raman bands appearing without being caused by transitions in vibrational quantum states, or alpha particles appearing without pre-existing nuclei, etc.

If QM was as acausal as some people think, then we should not assume that these phenomena have a cause. Then I may as well burn my Ph.D. thesis, and all the spectroscopy journals should quit, as should any nuclear physics research.

Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat which appeared. This universe can't have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldn't have any properties until it actually came into existence.

IS CREATION BY GOD RATIONAL?

A last desperate tactic by skeptics to avoid a theistic conclusion is to assert that creation in time is incoherent. Davies correctly points out that since time itself began with the beginning of the universe, it is meaningless to talk about what happened ‘before’ the universe began. But he claims that causes must precede their effects. So if nothing happened ‘before’ the universe began, then (according to Davies) it is meaningless to discuss the cause of the universe’s beginning.

But the philosopher (and New Testament scholar) William Lane Craig, in a useful critique of Davies, pointed out that Davies is deficient in philosophical knowledge. Philosophers have long discussed the notion of simultaneous causation. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) gave the example of a weight resting on a cushion simultaneously causing a depression in it. Craig says:

“The first moment of time is the moment of God's creative act and of creation's simultaneous coming to be.

Some skeptics claim that all this analysis is tentative, because that is the nature of science. So this can’t be used to prove creation by God. Of course, skeptics can't have it both ways: saying that the Bible is wrong because science has proved it so, but if science appears consistent with the Bible, then well, science is tentative anyway.

A FINAL THOUGHT

The Bible informs us that time is a dimension that God created, into which man was subjected. It even tells us that one day time will no longer exist. That will be called "eternity." God Himself dwells outside of the dimension He created (2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2). He dwells in eternity and is not subject to time. God spoke history before it came into being. He can move through time as a man flips through a history book.

Because we live in the dimension of time, it is impossible for us to fully understand anything that does not have a beginning and an end. Simply accept that fact, and believe the concept of God's eternal nature the same way you believe the concept of space having no beginning and end—by faith—even though such thoughts put a strain on our distinctly insufficient cerebrum.

[Author: Jonathan Sarfati, Creation Ministries International. First published in: Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12(1):20-22, 1998.]

Who created God? • ChristianAnswers.Net

The possibilities are endless. To claim that it wasn't 'A', therefore it has to be 'B' is truly arrogant & ignorant, as it claims knowledge that nobody in the world has access to.[/QUOTE]

You're repeating yourself, again.

LarsMac;1494008 wrote: You're repeating yourself, again.


That is because I am responding to repetitions!

You COULD try to inject a little science in you babble.

Why do I believe that? HERE are the FACTS, as opposed to Crationist Cherry Picked clips.

What is the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

Saibal Mitra, a professor of physics at Missouri State University, finds the Second Law to be the most interesting of the four laws of thermodynamics. “There are a number of ways to state the Second Law," he said. "At a very microscopic level, it simply says that if you have a system that is isolated, any natural process in that system progresses in the direction of increasing disorder, or entropy, of the system.


Note ISOLATED / CLOSED. The Universe is neither Isolated nor Closed. It is expanding.

The Higgs Boson has proved that something CAN come from nothing. It has been OBSERVED to come from nothing, plus the experiment had been repeated, predicted & observed again. That is the Scientific way.

There is also no evidence to say that there had to be a beginning. I basic 3 Dimensional terms time is like a Mobius Strip (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6bius_strip). It has no beginning or end. Did Time ever have a beginning? If so, what was there before Time? How long was it there for? How can it have been there before Time if there was no Time? Time itself exists. It is likely to have always existed. Time is interchangeable with Energy & Matter. The Universe is made up of Time, Energy & Matter. Therefore, if Time has always existed, then so have the makings of the Universe.

Continental Erosion




The continents are eroding at a rate that would level them in much less than 25 million years (a). However, evolutionists believe that fossils of animals and plants at high elevations have somehow avoided this erosion for more than 300 million years. Something is wrong.

a. Nevins, pp. 80–81.

George C. Kennedy, “The Origin of Continents, Mountain Ranges, and Ocean Basins, American Scientist, Vol. 47, December 1959, pp. 491–504.

Roth, “Some Questions about Geochronology, pp. 65–67.

“North America is now being eroded at a rate that could level it in a mere 10 million years ... Dott and Batten, p. 133.

Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown

Given how the entire crust of the Earth is constantly on the move, those bits you just posted show an amazing ignorance on the part of the "authors"

Eroding? To where? The continents are constantly moving - drifting apart from each other. That's why it's called Continental Drift (the clue's in the name). The continental plates are like ice cubes in water, floating on the mantle of molten rock beneath. Currents of molten rock are constantly pushing & reshaping these plates. Yes, there is an amount of erosion at the edges, but these are also being replaced by pressures pushing them upwards inland, as with mountains. As I have mentioned before, it is known that mountains, despite undergoing a certain amount of erosion are actually growing at a faster rate than they are eroding. This much has been recorded by laser measuring techniques. As with all science it is observed fact. The continental drift is being observed from space. That, too, is scientific fact. It doesn't matter how much you choose to deny it, it is being observed & recorded. If things happen the way you seem to imagine they happen, volcanoes would only form wells, surrounded by the land it erodes. In actual fact, they create mountains from the force of the lava being forced out & cooling above the surface. Other, non volcanic mountains are formed by land masses moving towards each other - like a sheet of paper with the edges being pushed inwards. Far from the paper being compressed, it gives at the point of least resistance & rises upwards.

Although the Earth is relatively young, being only a few billion years old, it is also true that in many billions of years in the future the molten core will eventually cool & solidify, at which point it shall probably be covered by a frozen layer of ice, as well as a frozen atmosphere, leaving no trace of life - although by that time, the Sun will also have probably gone Supernova as well. Far from "World Without End", leaving us as another barren rock floating in space. But who knows? Perhaps in the process of floating through space it will chance upon another lifeless planet, collide with it, scattering its traces of DNA, beginning the cycle all over again.

Continental Drift - Facts v Creationism

Evolution maybe a Theory

But Creationism is just a Hypothesis

Theory v Hypothesis

A Hypothesis attempts to answer questions by putting forward a plausible explanation that has yet to be rigorously tested. An educated guess.

A Theory on the other hand has already undergone rigorous testing by various scientists and is generally accepted as being an accurate explanation of an observation. This doesnt mean the Theory is necessarily correct; only that present testing has not been able to disprove it and the evidence, as it is understood, appears to support it.

That's how science works, as opposed to wishfully wanting things to be true because you want it to so badly, you will blindly follow manipulated or made up science, as presented by, mostly, charlatans.

FourPart;1494217 wrote: Continental Drift - Facts v Creationism




All, cringingly proves it's all about lies, deception and made up stuff that even my grandaughters would laugh at.

Do they really believe that kangaroos all ran one way and the lions all ran the other way. You don't think there was a chance that some lions might have followed a source of food to Australia, providing of course that the sea level dropped by 30 metres in order for them to do so (Where did the water go and where did it all come back from ?)

Creationist reasoning ? There is none !

Snowfire;1494227 wrote: All, cringingly proves it's all about lies, deception and made up stuff that even my grandaughters would laugh at.

Do they really believe that kangaroos all ran one way and the lions all ran the other way. You don't think there was a chance that some lions might have followed a source of food to Australia, providing of course that the sea level dropped by 30 metres in order for them to do so (Where did the water go and where did it all come back from ?)

Creationist reasoning ? There is none !


You have a point concerning the lions and kangaroos. I have no idea how the different animals wound up in different locations after the Flood. One possibility is just as the Flood and the collection of all the animals aboard the Ark was God's project, it may be He was also responsible for their distribution afterwords.

Most of the Flood water came from underground chambers when all the fountains of the great deep were broken up (Gen. 7:11). The Flood water, in the form of oceans, is still there covering 2/3 of the earth. If the earth was relative smooth, as it was before the Flood, the water would cover the earth to a depth of about a mile. For details, go here: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Part II:

First of all there is no evidence for the notion that the water was ever below the earth crust. There is no shortage of exploratory bore holes, both for general geological exploration as well as those searching for oil. Secondly, it is a FACT that denser materials sink to the bottom. Water is less dense than rock. That is why you don't get rocks floating on the oceans. You do, however, get rocks floating on top of molten rock, in the same way as ice floats on water.

I am pleased to see that your response to the question of why lions & kangaroos o not appear on the same land mass with "I have no idea", as that is the beginning of learning, but only if, at that point you begin to question things, according to the evidence. The evidence is that the land masses broke apart from the Continental Drift. That is known to have happened as it is being observed & recorded as still happening. It is at this point where the climates begin to differ as the continents move to different positions on the earth & fossil records show varying patterns of evolution / adaptation to those conditions. It has been shown that there is an ancestral root, common to all continents, and then, as they separate, the divergence paths went their own ways.

It is one thing to say "I have no idea" and to follow it with, "but we have this evidence that suggests this is what happened" than to say "I have no idea" & then to follow it with something like "so God must have done it".

Snowfire;1494225 wrote: Evolution maybe a Theory

But Creationism is just a Hypothesis

Theory v Hypothesis

A Hypothesis attempts to answer questions by putting forward a plausible explanation that has yet to be rigorously tested. An educated guess.

A Theory on the other hand has already undergone rigorous testing by various scientists and is generally accepted as being an accurate explanation of an observation. This doesnt mean the Theory is necessarily correct; only that present testing has not been able to disprove it and the evidence, as it is understood, appears to support it.

That's how science works, as opposed to wishfully wanting things to be true because you want it to so badly, you will blindly follow manipulated or made up science, as presented by, mostly, charlatans.


Actually a Scientific Theory is an explanation based on the evidence already available. A Hypothesis is an explanation based on no evidence whatsoever, usually followed by cherry picking pieces of unrelated evidence that might fit in with their idea & to take that as 'proof'. Such as, I have a hypothesis that Fluffy Pink Flying Elephants exist. Now, whilst on an exploratory mission in Africa, I not only found elephant footprints, but I also found lots of feathers - some of which were pink. This, therefore, is proof positive of the existence of Fluffy Pink Flying Elephants.

FourPart;1494313 wrote: First of all there is no evidence for the notion that the water was ever below the earth crust. There is no shortage of exploratory bore holes, both for general geological exploration as well as those searching for oil.


Two of the world’s deepest drill holes are on the Kola Peninsula in northern Russia and in Germany’s northeastern Bavaria.22 They were drilled to depths of 7.6 miles and 5.7 miles, respectively. Deep in the Russian hole, to everyone’s surprise, was hot, salty water flowing through crushed granite.23 Why was the granite crushed? In the German hole, the drill encountered cracks throughout the lower few miles. All cracks contained saltwater with salt concentrations about twice that of seawater. Remember, surface waters cannot seep deeper than 5 miles, because the weight of overlying rock squeezes shut even microscopic flow channels.20

Geologists are mystified by this deep saltwater. Another surprise was greater-than-expected increases in the granite’s temperature with increasing depth—so much so that each drilling project was terminated early. This raises the question of why the earth’s crust is so hot. The hydroplate theory provides a simple answer.

[]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Ice Age. An ice age implies extreme snowfall which, in turn, requires cold temperatures and heavy precipitation. Heavy precipitation can occur only if oceans are warm enough to

I am pleased to see that your response to the question of why lions & kangaroos o not appear on the same land mass with "I have no idea", as that is the beginning of learning, but only if, at that point you begin to question things, according to the evidence. The evidence is that the land masses broke apart from the Continental Drift. That is known to have happened as it is being observed & recorded as still happening. It is at this point where the climates begin to differ as the continents move to different positions on the earth & fossil records show varying patterns of evolution / adaptation to those conditions. It has been shown that there is an ancestral root, common to all continents, and then, as they separate, the divergence paths went their own ways.


That is one idea with many problems. There is no evidence in the fossil record or elsewhere that evolution happened. Here is another idea with less problems:

Continental-Drift Phase. Material within the earth is compressed by overlying rock. Rock’s slight elasticity gives it springlike characteristics.71 The deeper the rock, the more weight above, so the more tightly compressed the “spring—all the way down to the center of the earth.

The rupture path steadily widened during the flood phase. [See Figure 62d.] Eventually, the width was so great, and so much of the surface weight had been removed, that the compressed rock beneath the exposed floor of the subterranean chamber sprung upward. [See Figure 62f.]

As the Mid-Atlantic Ridge began to rise, the granite hydroplates started to slide downhill on the steepening slopes. This removed even more weight from what was to become the floor of the Atlantic Ocean, so the floor rose faster, the slopes increased, and the hydroplates accelerated, removing even more weight, etc. The entire Atlantic floor rapidly rose almost 60 miles.

For details, go here: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Phases of the Hydroplate Theory: Rupture, Flood, Drift, and Recovery

Jigsaw Fit of the Continents. For centuries, beginning possibly with Francis Bacon in 1620, many have noticed the approximate jigsaw fit of the continents bordering the Atlantic. It is only natural that bold thinkers, such as Alfred Wegener in 1915, would propose that the continents were once connected as shown in Figure 50, and somehow they broke apart and moved to their present positions. But would continents, including their broad but submerged continental shelves, really fit together as shown in textbooks? Distances are distorted when a globe is flattened into a two-dimensional map. Therefore, to answer this question, I formed two plates on a globe, matching the true shape and curvature of the continents. [See Figure 51.]



Figure 50: Continental Fit Proposed by Edward Bullard. Can you identify five distortions in this popular explanation of how the continents once fit together? First, Africa was shrunk in area by 35%. Second, Central America, southern Mexico, and the Caribbean Islands were removed. Third, Australia is ignored, because it’s fit anywhere is problematic—and where is Asia? Fourth, a slice was made through the Mediterranean, and Europe was rotated counterclockwise and Africa was rotated clockwise. Finally, North and South America were rotated relative to each other. Notice the rotation of the north-south and east-west lines. Overlapping areas are shown in black. Scientific justifications are not given for any of these five distortions.

The classical fit (Figure 50), proposed by Sir Edward Bullard, appears at first glance to be a better fit of the continents than my plates. However, notice in Figure 50’s description the great “latitude Bullard took in juggling continents. Were these distortions made to improve the fit? Few, if any, textbooks inform us of these distortions.



Figure 51: Poor Fit. Notice that the fit of the actual continents is not as good as Bullard proposed. [See Figure 50.]

Instead of fitting the continents to each other, notice in Figure 52 how well they each fit the base of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. The hydroplate theory proposes that:

a. These continents were once in the approximate positions shown in Figure 52.

b. They were connected by rock that was rapidly eroded and transported worldwide by erupting subterranean water.

c. As these eroded sediments were deposited, they trapped and buried plants and animals. The sediments became today’s sedimentary rock, and buried organisms became fossils.

d. The continents quickly slid on a layer of water (rapid continental drift) away from the rising Mid-Atlantic Ridge and toward the subsiding Pacific floor. They came to rest near their present locations.

Details and evidence will be given later in this chapter.



Figure 52: Best Fit. By far the best fit of these continents is against the base of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge—not as shown in Figure 51. The distortions of Figure 50 are unnecessary and deceptive.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Ice Age. An ice age implies extreme snowfall which, in turn, requires cold temperatures and heavy precipitation. Heavy precipitation can occur only if oceans are warm enough to

It is one thing to say "I have no idea" and to follow it with, "but we have this evidence that suggests this is what happened" than to say "I have no idea" & then to follow it with something like "so God must have done it".


Since the God of the Bible exists, it is logical that He could have done it.

Dissolved Metals




Rivers carry dissolved elements such as copper, gold, lead, mercury, nickel, silicon, sodium, tin, and uranium into the oceans at very rapid rates when compared with the small quantities of these elements already in the oceans. In other words, far fewer than a million years’ worth of metals are dissolved in the oceans (a). There is no known means by which large amounts of these elements can come out of solution. Therefore, the oceans must be much younger than a million years.

a. “... most metals are markedly undersaturated with respect to their least soluble compounds, and the supply of metals during geological time has been more than sufficient to attain saturation. Peter G. Brewer, “Minor Elements in Sea Water, Chemical Oceanography, editors J. P. Riley and G. Skirrow, Vol. 1, 2nd edition (New York: Academic Press, 1975), p. 427.

Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown

Pahu;1494368 wrote:

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown


Don't suppose that the more advanced techniques of dating have anything to do with that?

LarsMac;1494370 wrote: Don't suppose that the more advanced techniques of dating have anything to do with that?


Probably they do help to establish the fact of a young earth.

I think we are missing a few decimal points, there.

Pahu;1494372 wrote: Probably they do help to establish the fact of a young earth.


Please, by all means tell us what methods are being used to do that.

LarsMac;1494375 wrote: Please, by all means tell us what methods are being used to do that.




Evidence for a Young World/Universe



Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less than the required evolutionary ages, while the biblical age (6,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Thus, the following items are evidence against the evolutionary time scale and for the biblical time scale. Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled with the old-age view only by making a series of improbable and unproven assumptions; others can fit in only with a recent creation.

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.

The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same "winding-up" dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called "density waves." The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope's discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the "Whirlpool" galaxy, M51.

2. Too few supernova remnants.

According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.

3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.

According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years. Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that:

(a) comets come from an unobserved spherical "Oort cloud" well beyond the orbit of Pluto,

(b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and

(c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.

So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the "Kuiper Belt," a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.

4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.

Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean. This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters. The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year. As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.

5. Not enough sodium in the sea.

Every year, rivers8 and other sources dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year. As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's input and output rates. This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years. Calculations for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.

6. The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.

The total energy stored in the earth's magnetic field ("dipole" and "non-dipole") is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years. Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then. This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes. The main result is that the field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 20,000 years old.

7. Many strata are too tightly bent.

In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.

8. Biological material decays too fast.

Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of "mitochondrial Eve" from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years. DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neanderthal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils. Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage. Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.

9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years.

Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay. "Squashed" Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale. "Orphan" Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals.

10. Too much helium in minerals.

Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape. Though the rocks contain 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000 (± 2000) years. This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously.

11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.

With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world's best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon. These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.

12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.

Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began, during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies. If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.

13. Agriculture is too recent.

The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 185,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago. Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture for a very short time after the Flood, if at all.



14. History is too short.

According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases. Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The biblical time scale is much more likely.

Evidence for a Young World | The Institute for Creation Research

I did not ask for all that poppycock. I asked you to provide the methodologies being used that might produce results that support the notion of a young Earth.

I'd much rather you dazzle us with brilliance, than baffle us with BS.

LarsMac;1494399 wrote: I did not ask for all that poppycock. I asked you to provide the methodologies being used that might produce results that support the notion of a young Earth.

I'd much rather you dazzle us with brilliance, than baffle us with BS.


The simple answer is that unless it's written by Walt Brown he doesn't have a clue, or even the inclination to research the matter for himself. He puts images of how the continents don't really fit. Well, they look like a pretty good fit to me - even to the point of smaller bits sticking out being shaped to slot into the bits slotting in. Furthermore he refers to rock having elasticity. Well, I don't know about you, but apart from when in its molten state I've not come across many rocks that react too well to bending. When subterranean try to force it to do so it splits, forming cracks, which increase in size over the years - hence Continental Drift. Continental Drift is not something that can be denied. Ever since the first satellites were put into orbit there have been continuous photos been sent back to earth, and when all these photos are put together in time lapse the movement of the continents is clearly visible. That much is FACT. It was known to exist beforehand. It has since been observed & recorded as existing. Furthermore, by following the course of the movements being made now it is possible to backtrack their original course, and not suprisingly they fit exactly as they would have been expected to, and over the expected time scale. THAT is the real reason that Creationists try to deny its existence in the face of all the evidence. It is outright PROOF of the timescale. By having the Continents drifting, on average, by only about a meter every year, it is proof positive that the Earth is far older than they would like to believe it is.

As for rocks pushing downward when under pressure? Get real. In any situation, things will always take the path of least resistance, be it rock, liquid, gas, or even electricity. When rock is placed under pressure, it moves UPWARD. When you place a sheet of paper on the table & push the edges together it bends. However, you will notice it bends UPWARDS - not into the table.

If you kiss a frog and it immediately becomes a prince that is a fairy tale, but if a frog takes millions of years to become a prince that is science, according to evolutionism.

For the moronic, simple minded, uneducated and gullible disciples of an evolutionism age superstition, here are some facts:

Science Disproves Evolution

Planetary Rings

Planetary rings have long been associated with claims that planets evolved. Supposedly, after planets formed from a swirling dust cloud, rings remained, as seen around the giant planets: Saturn, Uranus, Jupiter, and Neptune.a [See Figure 24.] Therefore, some believe that because we see rings, planets must have evolved.b

Actually, rings do not relate to a planet’s origin. Planetary rings form when material is expelled from a moon or asteroid passing near a giant planet. The material could be expelled by a volcano, a geyser, tidal effects, or the impact of a comet or meteorite.c Debris that escapes a moon or asteroid because of its weak gravity and the giant planet’s gigantic gravity then orbits that planet as a ring. If these rings were not periodically replenished (or young), they would be dispersed in less than 10,000 years.d Because a planet’s gravity pulls escaped particles away from its moons, particles orbiting a planet could never form moons—as evolutionists assert.



Figure 24: Planetary Rings. The rings of Saturn, Uranus, and Jupiter (left to right) are forming today and steadily breaking up. Rings are not composed of debris remaining after planets evolved.

Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.



Science Proves God

When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists.

2. The universe had a beginning.

3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.

4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.

5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.

6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause.

7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.

8. Life exists.

9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).

10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.

11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.

“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes. [From In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, therefor He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.

The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.

[From Reincarnation in the Bible? ]No Results Page | Barnes & Noble

Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.

Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be regarded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.

Evidence for the Existence of God

Apologetics Press - Cause and Effect—Scientific Proof that God Exists

AlwaysBeReady.com

The First Cause Argument

Arguments for God's Existence

Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There - Is There a God

Bible Accuracy




1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:



The Rocks Cry Out

In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net

Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net

The Bible and Archaeology: How Archaeology Confirms the Biblical Record | United Church of God

http://www.biblestudysite.com/arch.htm



2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:



Scientific Facts in The Bible

Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

Science and the Bible



3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:

100prophecies.org

101 End Times Bible Prophecy

About Bible Prophecy

Bible Prophecies Fulfilled

Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible

Bible Prophecy



No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.

Oh dear, more unoriginal spoutations !

Kissing a frog & turning it into a prince being a fairy tale. I'll go with that. It's not much different from Genesis - picking up a bit of mud (the metaphorical frog) and abracadabra, a man (the metaphorical prince).

However, taking a piece of that same piece of mud (primordial slime), and over millions of years evolving into man (passing the frog on the way) is Scientifically acceptable. The transition over the time has been observed. The observance of evolution is like a film, made up of thousands of different frames. Changes occur little by little. The Creationist version of the film, however, takes the first frame & the last & denies the existence of all the frames in between.

1. The universe exists.


Obviously

2. The universe had a beginning.
Not necessarily. This is a pre-supposition, denying the possibility that the Universe has always existed.

3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
Same again - not necessarily. This is a pre-supposition, denying the possibility that the Universe has always existed.

4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.

And again - not necessarily. This is a pre-supposition, denying the possibility that the Universe has always existed.

5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
Yet again - not necessarily. This is a pre-supposition, denying the possibility that the Universe has always existed.

6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause.
The Higgs Boson has proved this claim to be wrong.

7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.


False dichotomy. If something happens it is natural. Whether you understand the nature of how it happens is neither here nor there.

8. Life exists.


Obviously (Unless you get into deeper realms of philosophy, but we won't go there)

9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
Not quite. Life, as far as we know, always comes from some pre-existing bio-organism. All organisms, as with anything else, are made of molecules, which are, in turn made up of atoms. Break down a life form to its base elements & what difference is there between that & those base molecules?

10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.


Another pre-supposition. What do you class as life?

11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.
Since there is no such thing as anything being supernatural, this is obviously not so for a start. If something happens it is natural that it happens. Therefore, it should read, "Since life does exist, the cause of life is natural".

Practically every one of your statements is based on a false premise, each subsequent one using that falsehood to substantiate the next.

It wasn't until a couple of hundred years ago, when Benjamin Franklin did his foolhardy experiment with flying a kite in a lightning storm when the common belief was that lightning was made of arrows hurled at the earth by God. They could not see anything of this sort happening by any natural cause, therefore it had to be 'supernatural'. That is not just some false rhetoric - that is the case. That is how it was. Then we started to learn more about what lightning was & what causes it, and before long it loses its 'supernatural' status. Telepathy is said to be supernatural. Personally I have no doubt that telepathy exists on some plane. I can't explain it. I don't know how it works, or why. However, I don't consider it as being supernatural. If it exists, then it is natural that it exists, even if we don't understand it.

FourPart;1494459 wrote: Kissing a frog & turning it into a prince being a fairy tale. I'll go with that. It's not much different from Genesis - picking up a bit of mud (the metaphorical frog) and abracadabra, a man (the metaphorical prince).


The difference being the latter being the result of intelligence.



However, taking a piece of that same piece of mud (primordial slime), and over millions of years evolving into man (passing the frog on the way) is Scientifically acceptable. The transition over the time has been observed. The observance of evolution is like a film, made up of thousands of different frames. Changes occur little by little. The Creationist version of the film, however, takes the first frame & the last & denies the existence of all the frames in between.


Where is evidence the transition over the time has been observed?

2. The universe had a beginning.

Not necessarily. This is a pre-supposition, denying the possibility that the Universe has always existed.


The presupposition is based on facts, observation and experience. It is a self evident fact. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science.

Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.

6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause.

The Higgs Boson has proved this claim to be wrong.


How did it do that?

7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.

False dichotomy. If something happens it is natural.


Unless it is supernatural.

9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).

Not quite. Life, as far as we know, always comes from some pre-existing bio-organism. All organisms, as with anything else, are made of molecules, which are, in turn made up of atoms. Break down a life form to its base elements & what difference is there between that & those base molecules?


Isn't that just another way of saying life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind?

10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.

Another pre-supposition. What do you class as life?


Based on the facts of science. Life is the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Since there is no such thing as anything being supernatural, this is obviously not so for a start.


An evidence free assumption.

Pahu;1494471 wrote: The difference being the latter being the result of intelligence.





Where is evidence the transition over the time has been observed?

2. The universe had a beginning.



The presupposition is based on facts, observation and experience. It is a self evident fact. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science.

Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.

6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause.

How did it do that?

7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.

Unless it is supernatural.

9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).

Isn't that just another way of saying life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind?

10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.

Based on the facts of science. Life is the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.




All evidence free assertions.

Nobody was there to observe the beginning - or not. There is no evidence one way or the other. It is equally likely that the Universe has always been there, albeit in ever changing forms, as it having had a beginning. You like to think it had a beginning because you find it difficult to think in anything but a linear time frame. It used to be thought that the speed of light was constant, and that light did not bend. This has now been shown that light changes speed depending on the density of the medium it is in, and it is also affected by gravity, as with Black Holes. It is believed that Time is also drawn into Black Holes, and there are theories that the capacity of a Black Hole is finite, and that once full to capacity it will explode, crating a new Big Bang, and starting the cycle all over again. The assumption that there is a beginning, a middle & an end to Time is totally unfounded. By basing all your arguments on a single unfounded premise, all subsequent claims based on that premise are also immediately flawed. When you don't know something to be so, one way or the other, you must accept that there are alternate explanations. You can BELIEVE something to be true - that is quite another matter. You can BELIEVE the earth is flat. It doesn't make it so, though. You can BELIEVE (as many do) that the Americans never really landed on the moon, but when you make a claim, the onus of proof is on the claimant. In science the proof exists before the claim (theory). In Creationism there is no proof as, by definition, it relies on Faith, which is a non-material thing & as such is purely of the mind - aka imagination. No matter how much you try to deny it there are millions of fossil records which when photographed & placed in order a clear transition can be seen from A to B to C, etc. The typical Creationist claim is that no transitional records have been found. On the contrary - every single record is a transitional one. Evolution, by nature, doesn't make sudden leaps from point A to point Z - that's the Creationist view. For instance, I saw a video of Johnny Depp on FaceBook the other day. It comprised of a collection of family photos from when he was a baby right up to the current day, and with a simply edited slideshow you could see, over a couple of minutes his entire life growth from baby to man. These are clearly 2 different phases of his life, but at which point would you be able to say that this was the transitional stage from a baby to a boy, from a boy to a youth, from a youth to an adolescent, from an adolescent to a man? Every single frame was a transition from stage to the next - and this is only over the period of, say 25 years. With evolution we a re talking millions of years. If things were not to change in that time, I might question how natural that was & ask why things didn't change.

LarsMac;1494472 wrote: All evidence free assertions.


On the contrary, all the facts are the result of the facts of science.