VirOptimus
A nihilist who cares.
Science does not have beliefs.
Its all about data and evidence.
The evidence for common descent is overwhelming.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
OK so you're saying that all science believes that WE originate from a one celled organism...
Then I listen to Meyers or Tour and they're scientists and they don't agree...so do they have an agenda?
You seem to be suggesting that a few scientists disagree with the majority that that minority view is as probably true as the majority view.Is that what you meant??
I said
↑
What not all science can agree on is us coming from a single celled organism
You said
Well, not all scientists can agree on intelligent design, so ...
I'm not saying I believe the majority....
I believe what I think to be correct....
I didn't understand your reply.
I'm an expert in theology and it makes sense and it's a rational belief system.You seem to be suggesting that a few scientists disagree with the majority that that minority view is as probably true as the majority view.
This seems like a bad strategy. Either tentatively accept the majority of experts or become an expert yourself.
Is the universe a closed system?
"A Universe From Nothing"What provocative title?
I meant it's a mistake to use a word that someone used in one sense or meaning as if they used it with a different sense or meaning; it's form of straw man or equivocation fallacy.What I say is not a mistake, it's how I understand.
Sort of, but not exactly. The objective is to explore how a universe with properties like our own could arise, in terms of the big bang, and in terms of some more fundamental state, using models based on general relativity and particularly quantum mechanics, i.e. assuming that the laws of quantum mechanics apply in any such state.I've heard Krauss a lot talking about his book...He's desperate to figure out a way to explain how nothing means something different because NOW science has to deal with the universe coming into creation FROM nothing....Before science just said it always existed...so they have a bigger problem now.
What 'saving us' stuff?And all this saving us stuff is nonsense.
So one story goes. Other stories are available...Jesus is the Word of God...He spoke for God.
To teach us how to be here and now...and, if we're interested, how to be with God forever after death.
Likewise, I'm sureI don't think people that don't believe in God are dumb or ignorant...I do feel like they haven't accepted the Light.
As I understand it, it doesn't even necessarily apply on cosmological scales - conservation of energy is a result of time-translation symmetry (via Noether's theorem), so, as Special Relativity tells us there is no absolute time, it must be a (cosmologically) local phenomenon.Not as stated, no. There is a law of the conservation of energy, although it's not clear whether that applies to the universe itself or not.
Who says that breaking a commandment is necessarily a sin? If you make false claims about someone, whether you believe them or not then you have "borne falsewitness" and broken the commandment. You can decide whether or not that is a sin. As a Christian you should strive to avoid breaking the Commandments.Regarding the 9th commandment....
You don't know theology do you?
If you commit a sin, but don't know it's a sin...
Is it a sin?
Maybe Krauss would like to take me to court for
defamation of character?
Science is not desperate to prove that something could come from nothing because the fact that the universe had A START goes against everything science believed till about the second half of the 20 century.
This is a fact.
If one does not follow the scientific method can one claim to be a scientist? When it comes to evolution Meyers at least is not a scientist, I am unfamiliar with the other.OK so you're saying that all science believes that WE originate from a one celled organism...
Then I listen to Meyers or Tour and they're scientists and they don't agree...so do they have an agenda?
I think I need to explain what NOTHING means....!
Energy. Energy doesn't go away,,,it just changes to something different.
Where does energy come from?
See...I go all the way to the beginning --- there either was ALWAYS something, or , something caused all we see to happen.
If there was always something---what created it?
Energy is an "it"...where did it come from?
If everything came into being...the same question applies: What sparked it to come into being?
WHAT caused the big bang? Where did all that heat come from? What created that mass?
Too many questions for many to accept that they just started somehow. This is why I say that it's easier to understand that a supreme being started it...or sparked it.
To some here this sounds like believing in magic...
To me it sounds like magic to believe that all this comes from "nothing" .... kind of like REALLY pulling a real rabbit out of an empty hat with no tricks involved. Is it possible?
It IS putting me down...when all along I've been very civil. I've studied enough to know that I don't agree...can I not agree?
You said you don't believe something came from nothing. Is what we see around us something?
Where did it come from?
Until the 60's or 80's science believed the universe always existed. Ooops. NOW they don't and science says it came into being but they don't know how.
Would you say this is SOMETHING from NOTHING?
I THINK SO....
You don't believe the info in DNA happened by chance?
Then how did it happen?
If I'm inserting positions no scientist holds.
Then tell me:
WHAT POSITION DO SCIENTISTS HOLD NOWADAYS?
I see Lawrence Krauss trying to prove now that SOMETHING can come from NOTHING....
What more needs to be said?
Meyers isn't a scientist. Tour is a chemist, not a biologist, and he's stated publicly that he doesn't understand evolution. Certainly neither one is doing any science that undercuts common descent.OK so you're saying that all science believes that WE originate from a one celled organism...
Then I listen to Meyers or Tour and they're scientists and they don't agree...so do they have an agenda?
In Special Relativity, energy is frame-dependent but it is conserved. That is, you measure a different value for the energy of a system depending on the frame you view it from, but the value never changes when viewed from a single frame. Another way of saying the same thing is that relativistic models of physics are invariant under time translation.As I understand it, it doesn't even necessarily apply on cosmological scales - conservation of energy is a result of time-translation symmetry (via Noether's theorem), so, as Special Relativity tells us there is no absolute time, it must be a (cosmologically) local phenomenon.
Yes, I got that wrong - it's the curvature of spacetime under GR changes things.In Special Relativity, energy is frame-dependent but it is conserved. That is, you measure a different value for the energy of a system depending on the frame you view it from, but the value never changes when viewed from a single frame. Another way of saying the same thing is that relativistic models of physics are invariant under time translation.
The situation under General Relativity is much murkier -- the question exceeds my competence.
Then I listen to Meyers or Tour and they're scientists and they don't agree
It's my understanding that quantum mechanics to not help Krauss' theory of something coming from nothing --- this is what he's trying to convince us non-scientists of,,,or, at least, he's trying to find things in the universe that we have not seen yet to explain HOW we got here from a nothingness state."A Universe From Nothing"
I meant it's a mistake to use a word that someone used in one sense or meaning as if they used it with a different sense or meaning; it's form of straw man or equivocation fallacy.
On reflection, I was over critical.
Sort of, but not exactly. The objective is to explore how a universe with properties like our own could arise, in terms of the big bang, and in terms of some more fundamental state, using models based on general relativity and particularly quantum mechanics, i.e. assuming that the laws of quantum mechanics apply in any such state.
Of course, I can't say that I fully understand what you're stating above...but I get the general idea.At a fundamental (particle) level in our spacetime, interactions are completely reversible, so there is no directional arrow of time and no causality; the arrow of time, and consequently causality, are emergent statistical properties of a very well-ordered state undergoing large numbers of interactions (the state at the big bang). The simple fact that there many more ways to be disordered than ordered means that the random reversible interactions will tend to disorder the initial state, causing an asymmetry with respect to time - a present , past, and future generated by increasing disorder. This increasing entropy (disorder) is where we get the laws of thermodynamics from, and what drives the development of the universe and the complexity it produces.
You've reduced God to an idea that could be helpful n some cases...like in social order and psychology -- you know,,,man made God up so we could "use" Him.Two areas for investigation are why there was a highly ordered initial state. i.e. why was entropy so low at the big bang, and how the space & time of our universe emerge from a more fundamental state. There are numerous theoretical models for how universes like ours are 'born'; our best current description of how the big bang progressed to the universe we see today predicts that our universe is likely one of many universes produced by the same mechanism. This is the 'universe from nothing' concept - universes created by this mechanism, like ours, have zero overall energy - the mass and energy they contain are balanced by the tension (gravity) they generate in spacetime; like wave and trough, they sum to zero.
The idea of some fundamental state that has quantum instabilities from which spacetime itself emerges makes an ultimate temporal origin moot; ultimately, questions of existence, God or no God, must come down to brute fact. God ideas may be useful in human psychology and social organization but have no utility in physics.
You mentioned something about how Jesus saves us.What 'saving us' stuff?
How do I make a false claim about someone if it's my belief that it's the truth?Who says that breaking a commandment is necessarily a sin? If you make false claims about someone, whether you believe them or not then you have "borne falsewitness" and broken the commandment. You can decide whether or not that is a sin. As a Christian you should strive to avoid breaking the Commandments.
They both do not believe in the primordial soup theory.If one does not follow the scientific method can one claim to be a scientist? When it comes to evolution Meyers at least is not a scientist, I am unfamiliar with the other.
Yes, I understand what YOU are saying, but you're not understanding my point.Actually energy is merely bookkeeping. I know it seems like a solid something to you but that is not the case. For example; light is made up of photons. If you have a well tuned laser beam almost all of them have the same energy. But the energy of them varies depending upon one's relative motion to the source. Move towards the source and you will measure a higher frequency and therefore a higher energy, move away from it and the opposite occurs. There is no "right" energy to those photons. But the theory of relativity does guarantee that the books balance.
Now if you understood Krauss's lecture you would understand that the total energy of the universe is zero. There is both positive and negative energy and as close as we can measure they balance out. As a result a universe from nothing does not violate conservation of energy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?