5 Questions Evolutionists Can't Answer

[In situ]

You're the one denying the laws of physics, not I.

Let me correct that; I don't buy into your YEC interpretation and made up stuff and pure fantasies about what can be concluded from what I wrote and what experimental and theoretical physics actually has observed and how physicist mange to explains our shared reality in such way that we actually can make engineering application - that works - based on those explanations.

But before we go ahead things; do you got anything more you like to bring to the table before we start?

 

[HitchSlap]

But what does that has to do, or how is it related, with concept of infinity? Is 'infinite' a reference to Gods eternal nature? If so, why not say 'eternal' then?

"Eternal" is synonymous with "infinite" for the purposes of most discussions.

 

[KWCrazy]

If an evolutionist can not tell us where Jimmy Hoffa is buried, does this mean that God made Jimmy Hoffa disappear?

Actually, I think that was Frank 'The Irishman' Sheeran.

 

[In situ]

Since the creation of matter/ energy from nothingness is a scientific impossibility

Assume you are right; then please explain where protons get is missing mass from.

I don't remember the exact figure, but I think something around 50% of it mass cannot be explained if mass/energy cannot come from nothing.

When you done with that, then please, explain why naked electrons does not exists...

Then please explain what is wrong with Quantum Mechanics - the most successful and best experimental confirmed theory ever made in physics.

 

[KWCrazy]

He is not right in any sense whatsoever - macro or micro perspective - he just makes stuff up based on the classical scripted YEC responses.

What information do you have for this blatant falsehood?
Can you cite that source of the YEC script, or should we just consider your words devoid of truth?

There is no deeper understanding of physics theory behind what was said, nor any deeper thought process behind it

It is a mark of true ignorance to pretend to know the thoughts or the knowledge of anyone else. Your avatar is a canine and you compare me to a dog? There's something Freudian about that, I think.

But don't worry, my bulldozer is fueled and ready, just want to know if KWCrazy has anything more to bring to the table before I start my rant.

I would prefer that you fuel your bulldozer with something of merit, not ad hominum attacks that make you look simple minded.

 

[KWCrazy]

Let me correct that; I don't buy into your YEC interpretation and made up stuff and pure fantasies about what can be concluded from what I wrote and what experimental and theoretical physics actually has observed and how physicist mange to explains our shared reality in such way that we actually can make engineering application - that works - based on those explanations....

I don't remember the exact figure, but I think something around 50% of it mass cannot be explained if mass/energy cannot come from nothing.

Okay, never mind. If you consider the laws of thermodynamics to be some YEC conspiracy, then it's off to the dumpster with you. Apparently in your world "experimental and theoretical physics" supersede established natural law. Sorry to have intruded on your make-believe world. I shall not so interrupt you again.

Bye.

 

[essentialsaltes]

[/color]
Nobody disputes that matter/ energy are convertible to each other.

That's not what I'm saying. You're not understanding. Sorry, but the First Law is just not valid for QM systems.

 

[KWCrazy]

[/color]

That's not what I'm saying. You're not understanding. Sorry, but the First Law is just not valid for QM systems.

The only thing laking is gravity. The energy is already there, but subatomic particles lack the gravity to consistently bond, making them appear to pop in and out of existence as they become immeasurable.

Regardless, once the subatomic particles become large enough for gravity to exert its influence, then the totality of natural law comes into play; meaning that the actions of planets can never replicate the actions of subatomic particles.

 

[AV1611VET]

What does abiogenesis have to do with evolution?

Nothing ... why?

It's just a question evolutionists can't answer.

 

[AV1611VET]

LoL!

Go to the youtube page for this vid and it says,

So?

Does that bother you that you'll have to comment on your own -- and not parrot someone else's comment?

Derp! Derp! Derp!

Yup ... just as I thought.

You guys go 404 when you have to think on your own.

 

[In situ]

You're the one denying the laws of physics, not I.

I do not deny the existence of the ground state nor do I deny zero-point energy nor do I deny the vacuum state nor do I deny vacuum energy nor do I deny existence of the condensate nor do I deny deny Quantum field theory nor do I deny Quantum electrodynamic Vacuum's nor do I deny Quantum chromodynamic vaccum's.

Which one of these established theories in physics do you require I have to deny in order to reach your absurd conclusion that matter/energy cannot be created from nothing?

 

[toolmanjantzi]

I don't understand what you are talking about. What was flawed you said and what do I require to be infinite?

Obviously it cannot. However, nobody claims such things, so where did you get this idea from?

I mean, how do you imagine a distance to be infinite in a singularity when in fact, all distances are zero in singularity - which is part of the definition, in the first place, of a singularity in a manifold? The curvature must, as a necessary, be infinite in a singularity, so what is your problem with this kind of infinity?

And whoever claimed such things as infinite distance even exists?

In any case, as you might realize, I don't understand what it is you trying to say, because it does not make much sense to me, so can you please clarify?

Only fermiones require space (Pauli's exclusion principles holds true for them) but why do you assume a fermionic gas existed at the begging of time?

For instance an infinite number of bosons can occupy the same point, i.e. a singularity.... An example of such boson gas is photons in an electromagnetic field - such as light, radio waves, x-rays, gamma-rays etc.

Do you think your room gets tighter in some way when you switch on the light? How much light do you think it is possible to fill a room with?

I do no understand what it is you are trying to ask or claim here, but the "something from nothing" argument is a Straw Man. Because, according to the theory of general theory there was no such thing as "something came from nothing", there has always been something. According to the theory of general relativity, a singularity is not nothing, it is something existing as a singularity. Which was exactly what was said in the quote and statement I made in my original post...

For clarity I quote Robert M. Wald again: our failure to describe a singularity as a "place" in precise mathematical terms does not in any way lessen the obvious fact that singularities exist
That said observation and Quantum Mechanics tells use things can be created from nothing and that effects does not need to have a cause.

Like I said, the universe does not care what we think is is possible and what we believe it can do...

I don't understand you. Is this a question or statement? If it was a question, what is it I require to be infinite and to be measurable?

So your a universalist? You take all the Christian Doctrine and add it to the Universe.

You don't believe in a infinite God, but you believe in a infinite universe. I believe that God had no beginning or end, but you replace God with the Universe.

Sorry to say but that is not even Science that's you replacing God with the universe.

 

[AV1611VET]

If an evolutionist can not tell us where Jimmy Hoffa is buried, does this mean that God made Jimmy Hoffa disappear?

I'm not an evolutionist, but Jimmy Hoffa is buried in the end zone of the Kansas City Chiefs.

That's why they got penalized for having twelve men on the field!

 

[In situ]

Nothing ... why?

It's just a question evolutionists can't answer.

Well, 'Nothing!' is the answer they gave last time I checked. Is that valid as an answer or not?

 

[toolmanjantzi]

Why would an infinite god require attention?

The same reason you require oxygens attention. The same reason you require your blood to be at attention when the oxygen does its job. You require your heart to work as it is meant to.

You don't control your heart. You might be able to make it pump faster or slower through ON DEMAND EXERCISE OR SLEEP, but if it fails one day, you just throw it away and get a new one. If there is one available.

But guess what you depend on man to tell you your heart is Good or Bad.

I'm here to tell you you need a heart of flesh and not a heart of stone.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, 'Nothing!' is the answer they gave last time I checked. Is that valid as an answer or not?

Nothing is a valid answer where creationism is concerned -- not evolution.

God created the earth ex nihilo ... out of nothing.

 

[Coelo]

NO! The pyramids are NOT a marvel!

Of course they are. They are quite an accomplishment. What really attracted the attention is that they were filled with gold at one time. Even the temple in Jerusalem was covered with gold 2,000 years ago. That is why they tore it down to salvage the Gold from it. The marvel of the pyramids had a lot to do with the gold artifacts contained in them.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The only thing laking is gravity. The energy is already there, but subatomic particles lack the gravity to consistently bond, making them appear to pop in and out of existence as they become immeasurable.

That's gibberish. Mass and energy are equivalent. If a particle has energy, it has mass. If it has mass, gravity acts on it.

 

[KWCrazy]

[/color]

That's gibberish. Mass and energy are equivalent. If a particle has energy, it has mass. If it has mass, gravity acts on it.

Can you tell me where I said that ANY particle is without mass?
I can save you time. I didn't.
I said, "...particles lack the gravity to consistently bond..." I did not they they lacked any gravity.
I realize that it's easier to have an argument if you get to invent both sides, so I'll tell you what. You just go on making up what I say and then come back with your witty retort.

Maybe tonight I'll return to the thread and see who won.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Can you tell me where I said that ANY particle is without mass?
I can save you time. I didn't.

Well, it's just that I can't understand your gibberish. Particles lacking gravity to consistently bond doesn't mean anything, and it certainly has nothing to do with whether particles are measurable or not.