Who Is Your Creator message forum

 

Who Is Your Creator message forum
This Forum is Locked
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Stay on topic please

We are discussing the creation of matter, i.e. what evolutionists call the 'big bang' or the 'expansion of the universe.'

If you want to present empirical evidence that would prove that matter (or gases, etc.) can be created from nothing, feel free to do so and we'll begin the game.

The old earth/new earth issue does NOT give evidence either way of proving that matter can come from nothing.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Creationists don't deny the 'big bang' occurred.
====

Whoa-whoa-whoa-whoa-whoa. Seriously?

I think, then, you need to make a distinction between types of Creationists, because Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Ray Comfort and tons of other *very popular* Creationists would love to disagree. "6000 years or bust" for these guys.

You would, then, fall into the "old-earth-creation" category? If so, we have a LOT more to discuss.

-----
The issue is what caused it:
Nothing ... or God?
=====

No, your statements on the web site don't question "cause". Your statements question "origin". What was it *created from*, not what *began the process* of the Big Bang.

If you are accepting the origin of all matter from the singularity, then your statements on the site are misleading.

Also noteworthy: since the laws of physics and the laws of space break down the closer you get to the Big Bang, the laws of time also break down. It's hard for me to understand whether time would have "slowed down", or *appeared* to "slow down", or perhaps vice versa, but you have to admit that at the point of the Big Bang, there was more than likely no such thing as "time" at all. There may not be the possibility of a "before", since there was no such thing as "time" at the singularity.

----
While you claim that this is too 'oversimplified' for you, it's either one or the other.
===

Why the dichotomy?

Why couldn't the answer be "the result of an atomic collision in an alternate universe by two particles combined in such a way as to start another universe, either annihilating, assimilating or is encompassed by an already existing universe"?

Why the "nothing" or "God" solely? Surely, there's other possibilities, aren't there? I just came up with that one by myself just now...

I'm afraid it IS too oversimplified.

The Big Bang did not create matter

===
We are discussing the creation of matter, i.e. what evolutionists call the 'big bang' or the 'expansion of the universe.'
===

Actually, no. The Big Bang did not create matter in the way you are speaking of it (i.e. "out of NOTHING"). The materials that make up matter (quarks, gluons, protons, neutrons, etc) have always existed. Their number does not change - the FORM may change (e=mc^2), but the content of the universe is constant. There was no such thing as "nothing" as you describe it.

Physics is not yet able to explain anything that happened before 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang itself. The combination of all the forces into one force is not yet completely understood, so there's no way through ANY sort of evidence yet found (however, the LHC may change some of this) that can prove what you're asking - you're setting up a strawman. If you've got a better explanation, with some evidence to prove it, we'd love to hear it too.

Re: The Big Bang did not create matter

In regard to your comment:

"... you're setting up a strawman."

It's fascinating that when evidence is called for to back up the nonsense taught to students as 'fact,' the old strawman excuse comes forward.

As far as a better explanation, there is one and, using evolutionary criteria, it's more scientific than evolution. See:
http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/evolution_of_the_universe.html
http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/scientific_criteria.html

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

===
We are discussing the creation of matter, i.e. what evolutionists call the 'big bang' or the 'expansion of the universe.'
===

Actually, no. The Big Bang did not create matter in the way you are speaking of it (i.e. "out of NOTHING"). The materials that make up matter (quarks, gluons, protons, neutrons, etc) have always existed. Their number does not change - the FORM may change (e=mc^2), but the content of the universe is constant. There was no such thing as "nothing" as you describe it.

Physics is not yet able to explain anything that happened before 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang itself. The combination of all the forces into one force is not yet completely understood, so there's no way through ANY sort of evidence yet found (however, the LHC may change some of this) that can prove what you're asking - you're setting up a strawman. If you've got a better explanation, with some evidence to prove it, we'd love to hear it too.

Strawman = Strawman

===
It's fascinating that when evidence is called for to back up the nonsense taught to students as 'fact,' the old strawman excuse comes forward.
===

I bring up the strawman argument simply because, well, you DID bring up a strawman. Naturalistic methods of testing cannot explain what happened before the laws of physics began.

You ask for an explanation of what happened before the Big Bang - and you know very well that physics cannot yet explain that - and you claim that if it cannot be explained, well, then the whole theory is bunk and should be thrown out and not be taught or attempted to be understood. This is the very definition of a strawman argument.

Your position seems to be that if something is not 100% explainable and demonstrable by empirical evidence that it should not be taught at all.

Why shouldn't this apply to "Sunday School"?

One more chance

In regard to your breathtaking comment:

"The materials that make up matter (quarks, gluons, protons, neutrons, etc) have always existed."

You can either present empirical evidence for your claim or I will delete your further posts as they are nothing but philosophical in nature.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

===
We are discussing the creation of matter, i.e. what evolutionists call the 'big bang' or the 'expansion of the universe.'
===

Actually, no. The Big Bang did not create matter in the way you are speaking of it (i.e. "out of NOTHING"). The materials that make up matter (quarks, gluons, protons, neutrons, etc) have always existed. Their number does not change - the FORM may change (e=mc^2), but the content of the universe is constant. There was no such thing as "nothing" as you describe it.

Physics is not yet able to explain anything that happened before 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang itself. The combination of all the forces into one force is not yet completely understood, so there's no way through ANY sort of evidence yet found (however, the LHC may change some of this) that can prove what you're asking - you're setting up a strawman. If you've got a better explanation, with some evidence to prove it, we'd love to hear it too.

Re: One more chance

Oooh, nice attempt to delete my reply and ban my IP. Sorry, doesn't work on me - you ban this IP, you'll end up banning random people on AT&T's wireless network. Are you THAT afraid of me?

This is what happens ...

This board welcomes anyone who would like to post empirical scientific evidence for the theory of evolution (in this case, the creation of the universe).

Instead of taking advantage of this great opportunity, they take up our time with first admitting that there are no naturalistic explanations, but then go on to claim that that shouldn't stand in the way of teaching the nonsense anyway!

From http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/783356
"You ask for an explanation of what happened before the Big Bang - and you know very well that physics cannot yet explain that - and you claim that if it cannot be explained, well, then the whole theory is bunk and should be thrown out and not be taught or attempted to be understood. This is the very definition of a strawman argument.
Your position seems to be that if something is not 100% explainable and demonstrable by empirical evidence that it should not be taught at all."

You are awful strict

----
This board welcomes anyone who would like to post empirical scientific evidence for the theory of evolution (in this case, the creation of the universe).
----

For the last time:
Theory of evolution ≠ Creation of the universe

Not equal. Separate disciplines. Different concepts. Different rules. Not the same.

----
Instead of taking advantage of this great opportunity, they take up our time with first admitting that there are no naturalistic explanations, but then go on to claim that that shouldn't stand in the way of teaching the nonsense anyway!
----

And why shouldn't it be taught? What's wrong with it? Why is it nonsense?

There's no naturalistic explanation why the poetry of Shakespeare is so beautiful, should it not be taught?

There's no naturalistic explanation why visual arts affect us so, should it not be taught?

There's no naturalistic explanation for God - should it not be taught?

Why, in your mind, is a naturalistic explanation for everything required in order for it to be a valid concept to be explained to those who want to learn? Are you THAT strict of a scientist? Or are you simply afraid of it?

'Just more material

You 're kidding, right?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

----
This board welcomes anyone who would like to post empirical scientific evidence for the theory of evolution (in this case, the creation of the universe).
----

For the last time:
Theory of evolution ≠ Creation of the universe

Not equal. Separate disciplines. Different concepts. Different rules. Not the same.

----
Instead of taking advantage of this great opportunity, they take up our time with first admitting that there are no naturalistic explanations, but then go on to claim that that shouldn't stand in the way of teaching the nonsense anyway!
----

And why shouldn't it be taught? What's wrong with it? Why is it nonsense?

There's no naturalistic explanation why the poetry of Shakespeare is so beautiful, should it not be taught?

There's no naturalistic explanation why visual arts affect us so, should it not be taught?

There's no naturalistic explanation for God - should it not be taught?

Why, in your mind, is a naturalistic explanation for everything required in order for it to be a valid concept to be explained to those who want to learn? Are you THAT strict of a scientist? Or are you simply afraid of it?