Are Evolutionists Delusional (or just in denial)?

[Specterx]

Quote from peilthetraveler:

Really? All Science is fact-based? Lets look at the big bang theory then. It goes something like this.

There was nothing..then a singularity appeared and exploded and put everything in the known universe and everything evolved from there.


The problem with this is that Zero+ Zero = Zero. It does not equal 1. A singularity can not just appear out of nothing. Something would have had to put it there.

So how do you explain this fact? I thought you said science is all fact? Looks like you dont have any idea what you are talking about.

I'm 100% sure nobody will answer this question, but instead start coming up with their own theories now of how the universe started which they cant do because the big bang is the accepted scientific theory (I'm sorry...I mean scientific fact because ALL science is fact based, right) If you start trying to explain the way the universe started now and its different than what the scientists believe, then you are starting a new theory which means you are not basing it on current scientific "fact"


Now do you see that science is not all facts, but a bunch of beliefs. They trick you by finding facts on certain instances and then telling you that the fact that they did find is related to the theory that they cant prove and you evolutionists eat it up.

Nobody says the Big Bang Theory is "the" answer, it's just the best answer that we have come up with to date. Scientific knowledge is obviously confined to what we can observe, which places fundamental limits on how much we can ever possibly know.

If you want to think that God created the universe (but then who created God, and who created God's creator?) then I guess I can't say for sure that you're wrong. But I'm pretty sure that the Earth didn't snap into existence six thousand years ago.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Who says the Big Bang Theory is the best answer?

Oh yeah, the people who created the Big Bang Theory out of nothing...

Quote from Specterx:

Nobody says the Big Bang Theory is "the" answer, it's just the best answer that we have come up with to date. Scientific knowledge is obviously confined to what we can observe, which places fundamental limits on how much we can ever possibly know.

If you want to think that God created the universe (but then who created God, and who created God's creator?) then I guess I can't say for sure that you're wrong. But I'm pretty sure that the Earth didn't snap into existence six thousand years ago.

 

[stu]

Quote from Barth Vader:

I don't know, stu, it almost seems your argument is mixing the actuality and the potentiality of a quantum entity. Whether the actuality of the observation is dated today or 300 years ago, it is then moved to the realm of classical physics where observable, measurable facts reign supreme.

Your "virtual particle" to the best of my limited knowledge falls more properly under potentiality. Wave Function and Schrodinger's equation is, for all intent and purpose, describing an infinite amount of locations, things, that MIGHT be observable if the quantum entity is measured at any given time. These remain only theoretical possibilities until the act of measurement, which then solidifies the various potentialities into one actuality.

So, I agree that some aspects that were assumable under the discipline called Quantum Physics, are an integral part of our every day existence, lets not mix potentiality with actuality !

I end with a story attributed to Neils Bohr [contained in the introduction of the book "Who's Afraid of Schrodinger's Cat?]:

A young rabbinical student goes to three lectures by a very famous rabbi. Afterward, he describes these to his friends. The first lecture, says the student, was very good - he understood everything. The second lecture was much better - the student did not understand it, but the rabbi understood everything. The third lecture, however, was the best of all, very subtle and very deep - it was so good that even the rabbi did not understand it.

We are talking of elementary particles. Virtual particles are real. They are in the realm of classical physics. They come into existence from nothing. They exist then they don't.

They have no mass, their electrostatic force potential has infinite range. Perhaps that it where you are confusing potentiality with actuality.

Quantum theory makes predictions about virtual particles and on that, evidence for them is very well understood and is thoroughly tested. Because of the science in quantum mechanics /virtual particles /quantum fluctuations, things can be done which would otherwise be impossible were quantum mechanics wrong in any small part. That's about as conclusive as anything can get.

Schrodinger's Cat is an allegory / thought experiment / philosophical argument. It's not the physics where as you say measurable facts reign supreme.


This all started because someone else said everything must have a source or cause. That is an assumption which I am saying is ill founded in light of quantum mechanics and virtual particles.

I guess some people don’t like any information that shows something can actually do what only God is supposed to.

 

[stu]

Quote from omegapoint:

They don't pop in and out of nowhere. It just hasn't been discovered where or how yet but obviously you've repeated it enough times to yourself that you've made yourself believe it.

Who said anything about popping in and out of nowhere apart from yourself and an occasional troll ?

It has actually been discovered that virtual particles appear spontaneously in empty space. They pop into existence from nothing . That is what I said -from nothing, not from nowhere.

It has been discovered how they do that. It is part of Quantum mechanics which if it were wrong, you would not even be able to repeat your denial through the computer you use.

If you can't get your head around it then it's hardly my fault.
Do you want to try and discover where nowhere is now? Like a creationist would?

 

[jem]

I note Stu's statement that the singularity is time equal to zero, might not be accurate. Time started after the big bang. (at least according to what I read. I think Hawking and others have said this.)

the singularity may have been equal to no time.

Therefore whatever caused or perhaps created the big bang might not need a cause or a creator.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
I note Stu's statement that the singularity is time equal to zero, might not be accurate. Time started after the big bang. (at least according to what I read. I think Hawking and others have said this.)

the singularity may have been equal to no time.

At Singularity time = 0. Does that mean something else than singularity equals no time to you?

Quote from jem:

Therefore whatever caused or perhaps created the big bang might not need a cause or a creator.

Hmm... you might be on to something there. Like the Big Bang didn't need a cause for instance.

 

[omegapoint]

Quote from Specterx:

Wow... all I can say is, are you f*cking kidding?

There are usually two sides to every issue, but creationism/evolution really isn't one of these. Science, whether in modern form or just trial-and-error to see which rock makes the best cutting tool, is responsible for all of mankind's material advancement since we evolved on this planet. We can see evolution at work every day: think of drug-resistant bacteria.

Religion is about ethics and morality. No more and no less. Holy books can tell you how you ought to approach life and treat other people, but they can't tell you the age of the Earth, where the universe came from, or how to build a computer.

Irrefutable stuff here. I"d add Power to that religion ledger.

 

[omegapoint]

Quote from stu:

Who said anything about popping in and out of nowhere apart from yourself and an occasional troll ?

It has actually been discovered that virtual particles appear spontaneously in empty space. They pop into existence from nothing . That is what I said -from nothing, not from nowhere.

It has been discovered how they do that. It is part of Quantum mechanics which if it were wrong, you would not even be able to repeat your denial through the computer you use.

If you can't get your head around it then it's hardly my fault.
Do you want to try and discover where nowhere is now? Like a creationist would?

You're Star Trek informed descriptions of reality and need to just win are making me embarassed for you. Nothing/ nowhere is about how deep your analysis gets. Just curious, do you own a parrot?

 

[peilthetraveler]

Quote from stu:


Virtual Particles spontaneously jump into and out of existence in a vaccuum, from nothing, as observed by the Casimir Effect.

So you can believe small particles can jump into existence from nothing, but you cant believe God can make the earth spontaneously jump into existence from nothing?

You sound like a hypocrite to me. Only difference in our beliefs is that in yours, nothing creates something, and in mine God creates something.

 

[peilthetraveler]

Quote from Specterx:


If you want to think that God created the universe (but then who created God, and who created God's creator?) then I guess I can't say for sure that you're wrong. But I'm pretty sure that the Earth didn't snap into existence six thousand years ago.

Nobody created God. God exists outside of time in eternity.

And the bible doesnt exactly say the earth is 6000 years old. People just figured that by tracing the genology of man back to Adam. Adam was created on the last day, but a day to God may not be the same as a 24 hour day like we know today. A day may be the rotation of the entire Galaxy to God (which is about 250 million-300 million years for each "day") We really dont know.

The first line in the bible is "in the beginning God created the heavens & the earth" Thats basically the title for story of Genesis. But the hebrew word for "in the beginning" is berasheet. Rasheet is actually a word that means "an undetermined expanse of time. So if you read it like that it reads " In an undetermined expanse of time, God created the heavens & the earth"