Question for the YECs

genez · #41 1st May 2009, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by Siyha

What is it?

You do not know? You don't? You are either playing a silly game, or not. Either way it may actually turn out, it indicates that my answer would do no good.

I understood your point, but it was irrelevant to the discussion we were having which was about your claim that things in a universe without beginning wouldn't age.

To age such a reality would require it to have a point of beginning. How old would you be if you were never born and always existed? One may be able to tell the age of your discarded feces, but not you who had no beginning.

And I was asking you for more clarity on your reponse to the OP, and I still don't understand what you mean by "If it has no beginning? Nothing could age. It would be eternal. Timeless..." This is what I've been trying to get clarity on.

Lot's of luck on that one. You either can grasp the concept (as someone else here did rather quickly)... Or, you are incapable of grasping the concept. Or, is it? You play the game of sitting back and playing the ploy to only ask questions to divert away from what is obvious, refusing to address what you know will expose the flaw in your logic? Such skill would require one to keep juggling the issues to divert away from what one does not wish to address.

and I was addressing your response to the OP, and your analogy of God making things look old that are new has nothing to do with that, unless I missed the point of your initial response.

That was just another point that I introduced into the debate, which related directly back to what the issue was. But, to shift away from the universe as it now exists to then make the matter it consists of into the issue, would be self contradictory. For if the universe is eternally existing? (which was the premise) The matter would have had to always exist in the form of the universe. Do I really need to explain this to you? If that is the case? I should not try to explain part B, while you still miss step A.

Again, I assume the existence of the universe to be defined by the existence of energy and matter. If you think something different, thats fine, just please explain what you mean by universe so that I know what we are talking about.

The universe is the universe because it has shapes, forms and functions. Yes, the universe consists of energy and matter. But, energy and matter is not necessarily the universe. That is where you began to treat me as stupid to be toyed with. Its not appreciated.

Maybe for the sake of clarity, could you reword or summarize your response to the OP? It seems I have misunderstood what you are getting at this whole time.

Others got it. It's not as complex as your approach pretends it to be.

What you are doing is like someone asking ,

"Why do we stop when we see the stop sign?
What makes us respond with stopping?
Why should we stop?
After all, the sign only is metal and paint."

Now, if someone tried to answer that question with a reasonable answer? He is the dupe.

That's how you have been coming across to me with how you posture your questions. Questions, that, to me, are diversions. You also insult the intelligence of me by making it appear that I do not know how to communicate what I want to say. That its my fault if you do not get it. You do not get it because you alter what was said, and then play inquisitor as to what was meant. But, others did (easily) get it. So, if what you have been doing is not a ploy? Then its you that needs to get yourself to the point of being able to first grasp what was originally said. Until you can? To try to reason any further would be futile.

The air is so fresh above...

Siyha · #42 1st May 2009, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by genez

You do not know? You don't? You are either playing a silly game, or not. Either way, my answer would do no good.

So you don't have an answer... got it.

Originally Posted by genez

To age it would have to have a point of beginning. How old would you be if you were never born and always existed? One may be able to tell the age of your discarded feces, but not what has no beginning.

I'm not arguing the universe would have an age, its the things within the universe, like my discarded feces.

Originally Posted by genez

Lot's of luck on that one. You either will grasp the concept (as someone else here did rather quickly)... Or, you are incapable of grasping the concept. Or? You play the game of sitting back and playing the ploy to only ask questions, or divert away from what is obvious refusing to address what you know will expose the flaw in your logic. The skill would require to keep juggling the issues away from what you do not wish to address. And, to tell you that much is giving you the benefit of a doubt.

So instead of taking the time to courteously clarify so we can talk about it, you act like a dink and try to be rude and end the conversation so people won't see you have no idea what you are talking about, and that my questions are valid, yet entirely unanswered because you have no answers.

Originally Posted by genez

That was just another point that I introduced into the debate, which related directly to what the issue is. To shift from the universe as it now exists, to make the matter it consists of into the issue is self contradictory. For if the universe is eternally existing? The matter would have had to always exist in the form of the universe.

Do I really need to explain this to you? If that is the case? I should not try to explain part B, while you still miss step A. Such is the case. But, because I am giving you the benefit of a doubt, I am assuming you really know the truth of the matter (no pun intended).

The universe is the universe because it has shape and form and function. The universe consists of energy and matter. But, energy and matter is not necessarily the universe. That is where you began to treat me as stupid, to be toyed with. Its not appreciated.

Others got it. It was not as complex as your approach pretends it to be.

What you are doing is like someone asking , "Why do we stop when we see the stop sign? What makes us respond with stopping? Why should we stop? After all, the sign only is metal and paint."

Now, if someone tries to answer that question with a reasonable answer? He is the dupe.

That's how you have been coming across to me with how you posture your questions that, to me, are diversions. You insult the intelligence of another by making it appear that they do not know how to communicate what they want to say. But, others do easily get it. So, if its not a ploy? Then its you that needs to get yourself to the point of being able to first grasp what was said. Until you can? To try to reason any further with you would be futile.

All I did was disagree with your opening statement, "If it has no beginning? Nothing could age. It would be eternal. Timeless..." by trying to show that things within the universe could still age... like my discarded feces. To say the universe couldn't age, I would agree with, but you didn't say that. You said nothing could age. You brought up all the other stuff and have been going on rabbit trails of misdirection and instead of answering questions, been like, "If you don't get it, you don't get it."

I don't try and reason with you because I know it is futile. I've yet to see you take another person's post into consideration in my short time here on the forums. I post because of the lurkers and others who are reading this in the hopes that they realize you know jack and are unable to defend the stuff you make up from your poorly informed speculations.

Siyha · #43 1st May 2009, 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by Nutrider99

WRONG! Conversion creates or destroys nothing. You fail.

Your assuming all creation must be out of nothing, which is false.

genez · #44 1st May 2009, 08:12 PM

Originally Posted by Siyha

So you don't have an answer... got it.

Still playing the cat, and I'm supposed to be the mouse. Got it.

You have no answers. Only attacks on answers.

Wishing you a very nice Day, GeneZ

.

Siyha · #45 1st May 2009, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by genez

Still playing the cat, and I'm supposed to be the mouse. Got it.

You have no answers. Only attacks on answers.

Wishing you a very nice Day, GeneZ

.

Originally, I wanted to understand your answers. I thought all the things YOU brought up in our discussion, like the definition of the universe, were relevant. Thats why I was pushing for more information on them so I could understand what you were talking about. I see now that I was wrong... they were irrelevant and rabbit trails you brought in to hide that you can't defend yourself.

I have provided an alternative to your original statement with my reasoning for getting there, yet instead of addressing this, you focus on the questions I ask and shout, "you have no answers!"

Obviously an understanding on how discussions work has managed to evade you.

Sorry for wasting your time. I'll keep in mind that in the future, you don't like responding to people, you just want to have your say and be done with it.

metherion · #46 1st May 2009, 10:06 PM

Don't try to be cute. I was right and you were wrong.

No. I said that the sum total is constant. You said matter cannot be destroyed when I corrected you to the sum being total.

WRONG! Conversion creates or destroys nothing. You fail.

No, conversion destroys one to create the other. One is destroyed, the other is created. If I have x units of matter, and y units of energy BEFORE, I have x-1 units of matter and y+1 units of energy AFTER. Matter was destroyed and energy was created.

Send this to your boss and see if you have a job tomorrow. Frankly, anyone who doesn't know the verbiage of the laws of thermodynamics who works in that field is a disgrace.

I’ve been sharing it with my former professors and they’ve been laughing and shaking their heads at what you’ve been saying.
The only reason you THINK you’re doing better is because you’ve been demonstrating that YOU DON”T KNOW WHAT YOU”RE TALKING ABOUT.

Let me clarify. Anyone who believes we were crapped out of the black hole of a parallel universe or that the the entire universe just popped into existence is an idiot. Quantum that.

And is that what I even said? No? okay then.

So far, I think I've seen 250 definitions of the 2nd Lot, all of them saying more or less the same thing and phrased differently. I could probably find 50 sources that equate it to the winding down of a watch. Does everyone just get to make up their own definition and call it THE definition? And you wonder why we laugh at you?

That’s the definition from my textbooks. The college ones. In the thermodynamics classes I have official transcripts as having taken and passed. Leaving an important part of it that most laymen aren’t aware of out and ridiculing mine for including it is, at best, intellectually dishonest.

No, the First LoT states that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, only it's form can be changed. You said it COULD be created AND destroyed, which makes you WRONG!

Earlier you said it only regarded matter. And when one (energy or matter) is created, the other (which is not created) is destroyed. Period. You’re playing at semantics here. It’s a zero sum game, matter’s loss is energy’s gain.

I'm ridiculing you for pretending to be someone who works with thermodynamics for a living but yet who cannot grasp the simple concept of the laws of thermodynamics. BTW. Since melting ice cream demonstrates thermodynamics, does that mean you work at dairy Queen?

Pretends? If I were a lawyer trying to explain some law you have a preconceived notion of, would you dare say that? Only because I’m a scientist. And considering the fact that you shouldn’t even be ridiculing in the first place... You’re showing what you’re really interested in quite well. Ridicule the people with education, insist that because the internet has things that are wrong on it the people with said education must be wrong... yeah. Thanks for showing us your true colors.

I know that something cannot simultaneously be in harmony with the laws of physics while VIOLATING them!

Yes. But you DON”T know that the laws we’ve figured out are 100% all encompassing, or that there aren’t other laws, or anything of the sort. Unless you claim to know everything about the universe.

Again, I haven't seen your Nobel Prize yet. I didn't write the law. I only repeated the law.

Incompletely/incorrectly.

Excuse me? All of my answers are based on science, and I have demonstrated a more firm grasp of it than you have.

No, you’ve shown an incorrect and incomplete grasp of science coupled up with a lot of semantics to try to salvage your position, combined with ADMITTED ridicule of me, my field, and my education. Yeah, built on science my foot.

Stating that it is a scientific impossibility and therefore untrue given the boundaries of the physical world is called a logical deduction. Sorry

In science you cannot declare an absolute regarding unknowns unless you are omniscient. It is possible that everything we know can be falsified by something we don’t know yet. So unless you lay claim to know EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE, and I’m pretty sure only God does, you can’t say anything about the possibilities of things we haven’t discovered yet with 100% certainly, like you are claiming.

Metherion

genez · #47 2nd May 2009, 02:19 AM

Originally Posted by Siyha

Sorry for wasting your time. I'll keep in mind that in the future, you don't like responding to people, you just want to have your say and be done with it.

It was not a waste of time for me. I learned something new from it. And, as usual, your response is off base in your attempt to clean your hands. That's fine with me. Nice to have met you.

.

Siyha · #48 2nd May 2009, 03:00 AM

Originally Posted by genez

It was not a waste of time for me. I learned something new from it. And, as usual, your response is off base

If you had read the whole post, you would see that the post was, in fact, on base. Here, I'll post it again in case you missed it.

Originally Posted by Siyha

Originally, I wanted to understand your answers. I thought all the things YOU brought up in our discussion, like the definition of the universe, were relevant. Thats why I was pushing for more information on them so I could understand what you were talking about. I see now that I was wrong... they were irrelevant and rabbit trails you brought in to hide that you can't defend yourself.

I have provided an alternative to your original statement with my reasoning for getting there, yet instead of addressing this, you focus on the questions I ask and shout, "you have no answers!"

It seems though, instead of trying talk about it, you just throw out deflections and ignore the primary content of my posts, accusing me of being off base when you have had little more than obvious deflections to hide that you don't know what you are talking about and think that if you accuse the other person of this first, people won't notice.

Originally Posted by genez

in your attempt to clean your hands. That's fine with me. Nice to have met you.

And what exactly am I trying to clean my hands of? Oh right, asking for clarity from you. My bad.

Assyrian · #49 2nd May 2009, 04:49 AM

Originally Posted by Nutrider99

Let me clarify. Anyone who believes we were crapped out of the black hole of a parallel universe or that the the entire universe just popped into existence is an idiot. Quantum that.

That is crazy

Imagine thinking the universe came from a black hole!
Creationists could tell you it really came from a white hole.

genez · #50 2nd May 2009, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Siyha

If you had read the whole post, you would see that the post was, in fact, on base.

This was the OP.

Question for the YECs In reference to apologetics, do you ever tell people, such as friends or coworkers, that the universe had a beginning, and that God is the cause for the beginning? If you do think that, then how do you answer someone who asks you how we know the universe has a beginning?

You got off base, sir. The reason I am leaving your trail is because you do not have enough sense to see what it is you got off of. Well? Do you? No.

If you want your questions dealt with, start a new thread about the eternal nature of matter. I wanted to FIRST deal with the OP, not divert to another topic before the first was dealt with properly.

In the mean time. Happy trails...

.