5 Questions Evolutionists Can't Answer

[In situ]

Well how about you explain how nothing becoming something.

You like to ask question and cast doubt do you not? But you do not listen to the answers you get, do you? Did you read the post I made about this when it came to Einstein's general theory? It is Straw Man argument!

For all science know, it is possible to get something from "nothing". But this "nothing" is not what we first had imagine or believe it to be. We know what a universe from "nothing" means in the language of the theory of general relativity, i.e. a singularity containing it all, but we also know something else from Quantum Mechanics about "nothing" and the origin of the universe. This "nothing" is not what you try to make it to be, or want it to be - if you even know yourself what you mean with "nothing" that is and I doubt you do....but if you do then, please, define your "nothing".

Also notice that you do not have an exclusive right on defining what is meant with "noting"; scientist can investigate what "nothing" is and they have done so for decades now...

According to physics a vacuum, i.e. what we intuitively imagine to be "nothing", is defined as a zero energy state in where there exits no energy, no matter, no fields whatsoever. This is what a "physical nothing" is. This "physical nothing" is something; it is the most fundamental ground state of nature - a zero energy state. There is nothing (no pun intended) special with this ground state more than it contains no energy or matter or fields of any kind. Such "physical nothing", or rather vacuum, is unstable, for reason I will not go into now, and will produce something. This is a fact of physics.

Therefor there exits no such thing as "nothing" as we intuitively, and quite naive, at first have imagine "nothing" to be. However, there exists a "physical nothing" - namely the lowest energy ground state.

Because what has been discovered by scientist, time is mature for us to change our intuitive understanding of what "nothing" is to a that of a "physical nothing" when we tries to apply the concept of "nothing" to our reality.

It is a fact of physics that a physical vacuum actually contains something, or in other words; physics tells us that "nothing" actually is something. This means that what physics has to say about the origin of the universe, in extremely simplistic terms, is the following: "something became something else", but what they don't say is: "nothing became something" about the origin of the universe.

Now you have had the facts about "nothing" and the origin of the universe explained to you. Did you listen and learned anything from it or are you still going to pull your fingers in your ears and continue claim that this has not been explained and that science claims "something came from nothing"?

 

[Split Rock]

This is the 96th post, and so far, I'd say it's pretty accurate.

Either that, or evolutionists won't answer them; but so far, I agree that they can't.

Five more questions evos can't answer:

1. How did angels evolve?
2. Where did the flood waters go?
3. Why did God use a rib from Adam to make his helpmeet, instead of a cheek-swab?
4. Why did God give us the ability to think on our own and still expect us to be "child-like" and not question him?
5. Was God drunk when he created the platypus?

 

[In situ]

The beginning of all life.

So you say God was responsible for the abiogenesis, but what does that has to do with evolution?

 

[In situ]

I watched it first.

 

[In situ]

Link, please?

Your kidding with me now, right?

But okay, the video in your OP.

 

[In situ]

Does anyone else get the feeling that AV just sees the titles of these videos, and then posts them here without even bothering to watch them first?

Kind of yes....

 

[Loudmouth]

Well how about you explain how nothing becoming something.

Why do I have to explain something that I don't accept?

Even more, what does that have to do with species changing over time?

 

[Loudmouth]

The big lie comes when people attempt to claim that these particles which can neither be created nor destroyed. . .

So creationists are lying?

 

[HitchSlap]

[/COLOR][/COLOR]

So creationists are lying?

Are their lips moving?

 

[KWCrazy]

So creationists are lying?

Do creationists claim a natural origination?

 

[HitchSlap]

Do creationists claim a natural origination?

No, they claim a magic one.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, they claim a magic one.

If it was a magic one, one would already be there.

They (we) claim a miraculous one.

 

[HitchSlap]

If it was a magic one, one would already be there.

They (we) claim a miraculous one.

You say tomato, I say tomato.

 

[AV1611VET]

You say tomato, I say tomato.

Except this isn't tomato-tomatto ... it's magic-miracle.

 

[toolmanjantzi]

And with that lie, all the bad science that must be believed to support evolution is thus explained. None of the laws of physics can withstand billions of years. The impossible can happen over billions of years. Methematically unsound theories become sound; just add billions of years.

That, my friends is the sum total of the reasoning that gave us a multi-billion year old universe. Take a bow, Toolman. You've just admitted that everything in science is an absolute lie. This is the mentality that tells us that given enough time an aircraft can assemble itself and a watch can be formed by merely shaking a bag of parts.

And yet, they call others ignorant. How sad.

Edit: I read that fast and didn't see the obvious sarcasm. Nothing else changes, of course, because that's exactly what they claim. As a case in point, I once read an internet scientist's post where he contended that if you throw a bowling ball off a building enough times, one time the law of gravity will fail and it will fly away like a balloon.

I wish I could be there to see that. Then I could come to CF and tell others, then they would believe. NOT!!!!!

 

[toolmanjantzi]

You like to ask question and cast doubt do you not? But you do not listen to the answers you get, do you? Did you read the post I made about this when it came to Einstein's general theory? It is Straw Man argument!

For all science know, it is possible to get something from "nothing". But this "nothing" is not what we first had imagine or believe it to be. We know what a universe from "nothing" means in the language of the theory of general relativity, i.e. a singularity containing it all, but we also know something else from Quantum Mechanics about "nothing" and the origin of the universe. This "nothing" is not what you try to make it to be, or want it to be - if you even know yourself what you mean with "nothing" that is and I doubt you do....but if you do then, please, define your "nothing".

Also notice that you do not have an exclusive right on defining what is meant with "noting"; scientist can investigate what "nothing" is and they have done so for decades now...

According to physics a vacuum, i.e. what we intuitively imagine to be "nothing", is defined as a zero energy state in where there exits no energy, no matter, no fields whatsoever. This is what a "physical nothing" is. This "physical nothing" is something; it is the most fundamental ground state of nature - a zero energy state. There is nothing (no pun intended) special with this ground state more than it contains no energy or matter or fields of any kind. Such "physical nothing", or rather vacuum, is unstable, for reason I will not go into now, and will produce something. This is a fact of physics.

Therefor there exits no such thing as "nothing" as we intuitively, and quite naive, at first have imagine "nothing" to be. However, there exists a "physical nothing" - namely the lowest energy ground state.

Because what has been discovered by scientist, time is mature for us to change our intuitive understanding of what "nothing" is to a that of a "physical nothing" when we tries to apply the concept of "nothing" to our reality.

It is a fact of physics that a physical vacuum actually contains something, or in other words; physics tells us that "nothing" actually is something. This means that what physics has to say about the origin of the universe, in extremely simplistic terms, is the following: "something became something else", but what they don't say is: "nothing became something" about the origin of the universe.

Now you have had the facts about "nothing" and the origin of the universe explained to you. Did you listen and learned anything from it or are you still going to pull your fingers in your ears and continue claim that this has not been explained and that science claims "something came from nothing"?

Your basically admitting that darkness is the absence of light. That cold is the absence of heat. In a nothing state you have darkness and cold which is the state of nothing. But a vacuum has perimeter of influence or it would not be a vacuum. The perimeter of influence called space had to be created, because as much as you would like to believe in nothing having no perimeter in order for two particles of matter to hit each other the laws that would define the process science tries to recreate, had to be in place in order to repeat it.

When science tries to recreate the two pieces that collided to provide life as they know it, at best would have to follow the same physics and laws that were set from the beginning.

Basically in order to make the same good batch of chocolate chip cookies all ingredients, and the way they were added and mixed together, and size and heat of oven and position on tray would have to be the same. So, "Nothing" is more then the absence of light and heat (energy).

 

[StormanNorman]

[youtube]L6zrpBINJR0[/youtube]

DULL TOOL !!!!!!!

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

DULL TOOL !!!!!!!

Woah. I mean, the video doesn't actually bring up any questions that "evolutionists" can't answer, but this might be a bit of an overreaction.

 

[AV1611VET]

Woah. I mean, the video doesn't actually bring up any questions that "evolutionists" can't answer, but this might be a bit of an overreaction.

Didn't it ask how abiogenesis works (or came from)?

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Didn't it ask how abiogenesis works (or came from)?

And there are several competing theories for how abiogenesis works, all of which have their flaws and their strengths. That's how the scientific endeavor usually approaches a problem, especially one where direct observation is impossible (as in an event that took place billions of years ago). If you want to get into where it came from, then you get into theological questions that science can't answer because they're outside of its competency.

The only question in the video that seems "difficult" to answer is the question regarding the Big Bang, and that's because it tries to phrase the question in a way to suggest that the Big Bang was an atheistic creation ex nihilo. The Big Bang isn't inherently atheistic, and many ministries encourage people not to use it as an infallible argument for God's existence because of the chance that it wasn't the actual creation event of the Universe (at least not with the term Universe used to describe everything material that exists). It may not have been an ex nihilo event at all.