Are Evolutionists Delusional (or just in denial)?

[3121]

Is there anybody listening?
Is there anyone that sees what's going on?
Read between the lines,
criticize the words they're selling.
Think for yourself and feel the walls...
become sand beneath your feet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQvGyokze54

is there anybody listening?

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

Seriously jem, what is the problem here. What are you trying to say?

You are referring to the standard Big Bang cosmological model . It includes something called a causal singularity where time = 0 or time = zero. What are you struggling with?



If you look backward from now to the Big Bang, you reach the tiniest, minutest, infinitesimal, microsecond of time measurement where you can look no further to understand (yet)..... then there's the singularity where time = 0. There is no past where there is no time.

What on earth is there profound in stating thought about cause and effect is going to be deficient. Unless of course you start trying to squeeze God into that smallest of all possible time gaps as a cause?
Most theologians have stopped that nonsense by now anyway. However it appears that time shifting God into an absurdity of no time is sometimes preferred.

You have virtual particles right down to that point which do not show any requirement for cause, or for a Creator God in any case, as they come into existence out of nothing.

I was not question your statement because of my belief in God. I was question your statement because hawking and other top scientists state that time started after the big bang. Please provide a link to back up your statement singularity - time equals zero. I will be surprised to read and I will have to adjust my understanding. I have no religious dog in that hunt.


regarding God.
this is where you logic flies out your vacuum.

Science has no idea what existed behind the big bang. its not a tiny Gap to fit God in. God would fit in nicely to the Creator of the big bang or universe role.

Face it Stu your atheism is unscientific. My belief is faith just like yours.

 

[I am...]

Quote from IShopAtPublix:

Any reasonable person would look at that as actions of a deranged lunatic.

I must be reasonable then. And I don't necessarily subscribe to the evolutionary paradigm. I submit that what time presents to our senses is a symultaneous manifestation of imagination. Time is more of a static holograph. We move through it's changes as we adhere to our imaginative belief systems which serve but to deny reality.

Reality offers a constant, never changing perfection. Learning and change are antithetical to its domain. As such, what imagination offers is all that is antithetical to reality...including the concept that creatures evolve through change. Change is a function of mind. A mind constantly changing what it thinks about itself appears to evolve. This includes the evolution of species. When mind decides it's had enough fun and games, it will be game over. Change will be gone, and what was always there will appear. Christ is really the way it was, is and always will be. Everything else is a concept...or a symbol of a concept.

Christ!

 

[omegapoint]

Quote from jem:

I was not question your statement because of my belief in God. I was question your statement because hawking and other top scientists state that time started after the big bang. Please provide a link to back up your statement singularity - time equals zero. I will be surprised to read and I will have to adjust my understanding. I have no religious dog in that hunt.


regarding God.
this is where you logic flies out your vacuum.

Science has no idea what existed behind the big bang. its not a tiny Gap to fit God in. God would fit in nicely to the Creator of the big bang or universe role.

Face it Stu your atheism is unscientific. My belief is faith just like yours.

That is the agnostic viewpoint. It makes for a good metaphor.
People who are cocksure about their conclusions usually just have a need to win. Older non-Americans are annoyed by it Americans don't know another way to behave and haven't reconciled with the viewpoint that there will always be more questions than answers. The truth is a liquid not a sold.

 

[stu]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Oh, I noticed how you claimed that virtual particles come from nothing.

The just "magically" appear from nothing is your "argument."

For no reason, by no plan, by no power, the virtual particles having no mind, no will, no power, no intelligence just mysteriously appear, again as if by magic.

You really don't know how absurd your position is, do you?

It is an axiom that everything that can come into existence, like a virtual particle, was preceded by the potential to come into existence. This potential to come into existence is not nothing. Potential is there before virtual, before actual...and you call this unlimited potential nothing...

What an odd duck you are...

Repeatedly over the course of the history of science, previous so called "scientific conclusions of nothing" or "void" have been replaced with a deeper understanding that in fact there wasn't "noting" or a "void" there was something that was simply not understood yet.

Did radio waves exist before we were able to measure them?

Did sub atomic particles exist before we discovered them?

Yet, a scientist of hundreds of years ago would have said there was nothing smaller than the atom, and nothing like invisible rays.

There is something that these particles are appearing from, the fact that you can't see it, or measure it, doesn't not detract from the simple fact that something does not come from nothing...

Even if there is a field of nothingness from which all these particles manifest, both virtual and actual, that field of nothingness would be something...

I don't think asking yourself irrelvent questions about whether radio waves existed before "we" discovered them is going to explain much. If it does though, why don't you ask yourself did virtual particles which come into existence from nothing exist before "we" discovered them?

You are going to need more than imagination and assertion and denial to show how virtual particles don't exist, and how they don't come into existence from nothing. You will need to produce at least some of the quality of substantial evidence available to everyone which shows how they do, to show why they don't. Good luck with that.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

I was not question your statement because of my belief in God. I was question your statement because hawking and other top scientists state that time started after the big bang. Please provide a link to back up your statement singularity - time equals zero. I will be surprised to read and I will have to adjust my understanding. I have no religious dog in that hunt.


regarding God.
this is where you logic flies out your vacuum.

Science has no idea what existed behind the big bang. its not a tiny Gap to fit God in. God would fit in nicely to the Creator of the big bang or universe role.

Face it Stu your atheism is unscientific. My belief is faith just like yours.

First then, you tell me why this is not what you understand to be meant by the words Singularity and Big Band.

If you apply the science of general relativity and look backwards through the universe, you will come to a finite point in time where you cannot look back any further. At that point the universe and everything including space-time according to BB cosmology was compressed into zero volume with infinite density.
At that point, time is 0 or zero . That's the singularity. At the most miniscule fraction of a second after that extreme point of singularity the universe expanded. It's at that time - the tiniest fraction of a second after t=0 or time = zero singularity- that the standard model of particle physics and general relativity start to apply. That is Big Bang.

So you have a Big Bang singularity and a Big Bang phase where the universe expands. That is Big Bang cosmology.

You've mentioned what " hawking and other top scientists state " but you don't seem to take any notice of what they say. Hawking-Penrose describe a type of singularity of a kind to make deducible certain basic postulates.

The most straight forward Big Bang cosmological model has a causal singularity. It is where time = 0 or time = zero. Zero size or 0 size if you prefer. No spatial dimensions. They are all at 0. There is infinite density and infinite temperature at that singularity and time = 0.

Where exactly in that do you not agree that at the Big Bang singularity, time does not = 0 or zero?

Without science you would have no idea about Big Bangs and no real confirmable testable notion of how the world, or how the universe is, up to the tiniest fraction of a second after it came into existence.

So without science again you try for one weird reason and another to either fit your imaginary God friend into a billionth of a second gap between the Big Bang singularity and the Big Bang phase which now sounds ridiculous to even most theologians. Or faced with that you fancifully pretend It can contradictorily jump to a time where ludicrously there is none.

As far as God and delusional belief goes there is no logic. That's why your comments about religion and the non religious are confused, garbled and illogical. Face it jem.

 

[saxon]

But Aristotle had never met Einstein; so the steady stream of time was immutable. Plato, on the other hand, understood the eternal moment.

Quote from Barth Vader:

Your remarks brought something very similar to mind, but I could not recall exactly what it was..........upon further thought it was a statement by Aristotle ( we injure ourselves when we limit these arguments to our recent history, they have been with us for a very long time)

I quote Aristotle:

"...Hence, some philosophers, as Leucippus and Plato, fall back upon an energy that is always acting. For they declare motion to be always in existence, but why, and of what kind, they do not say, nor how this is true. Nor do they add a cause of this perpetual motion. Now nothing is set in motion without cause, but there must always be some individual cause in existence. Thus, a thing is moved in this way by nature, and again by some force, either mind or something else in a different way.

What is the nature, then, of the primordial motion? for this must be able to vary as much as possible. But Plato certainly cannot call that the first principle, which he sometimes so considers, which imparts motion to itself; for he (also) says that subsequent to and yet coincident with the world is the soul. Hence the assumption, then, of the previous existence of potentiality to actuality (or energy) is in one way correct but in another not...."

Aristotle goes on to state the case for his "First Mover" thesis, a God that moves matter but is not moved.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

" If it does though, why don't you ask yourself did virtual particles which come into existence from nothing exist before "we" discovered them?

I wouldn't ask myself something so silly as to wonder did virtual particles come into existence from nothing...then, now, and in the future...

Is something could exist, the potential always precedes that existing something, which means something cannot come from nothing...as potential to exist is not nothing.

Quote from stu:

I don't think asking yourself irrelvent questions about whether radio waves existed before "we" discovered them is going to explain much. If it does though, why don't you ask yourself did virtual particles which come into existence from nothing exist before "we" discovered them?

You are going to need more than imagination and assertion and denial to show how virtual particles don't exist, and how they don't come into existence from nothing. You will need to produce at least some of the quality of substantial evidence available to everyone which shows how they do, to show why they don't. Good luck with that.

 

[jem]

I noticed your lack of a link stu.

Let me explain. If time started after the big bang.

The that time after the big bank might be time = zero.

The big bang happened then time happened.

Therefore logically the singularity would not be time = zero.

I know you love to spew shit. I know you are smart but I have never seen you provide support for your statements.

I just though you might like to provide some support now.

Like I said I do not have a dog in the hunt. I just would have to rearrange my understanding if you actually had some support for your argument.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
I noticed your lack of a link stu.

The standard Big Bang model includes a singularity where t=0. Look it up yourself it's easy enough.

Quote from jem:

Let me explain. If time started after the big bang.

All events need time to start in otherwise they haven't started. Time does not start after something has started in time.

Quote from jem:

The that time after the big bank might be time = zero.

You don't have zero time after time would already have had to have started. I can't believe this would need explaining to a supposed adult.

Quote from jem:

The big bang happened then time happened.

The Big Bang expansion happened in time. It meets the standards of classical physics and general relativity. The singularity does not and it is where t=0 or time = 0 or time = zero or no time .

Quote from jem:

Therefore logically the singularity would not be time = zero.

There is nothing logical in your confused ideas about time happening before time happens.

The singularity where t=0 and then looking back from now, a tiny fraction of time up to the singularity, the start/expansion of the universe is the standard cosmological model.




This is like talking to 2 year olds, without the comprehension a 2 year old would have.

So far there is someone who doesn't want virtual particles to come from nothing so invents himself a "potential" to pretend that they don't.

Then there is someone else who thinks Americans are so cocksure of their conclusions he is able to cocksure conclude without any counter argument, that the words 'nowhere' and 'nothing' means the where or how of virtual particles appearing from nothing has not been discovered, even though the where and how virtual particles come into existence has been discovered.

...and then there is always jem, who doesn't appear to have the capacity to comprehend the most simplest t=0 concepts but at the same time says t might = 0.

And this is all because of what... quantum mechanics shows how cosmic nothing can produce a universe.
But instead of that one should realize, the childish superstitions of an imaginary God thing have to come first, defended by all possible absurdity.

….but at least you know something jem, even if it is only how to be crude

Quote from jem:

I know you love to spew shit.

sheesh.