If the universe is <10,000 old....

[philadiddle]

IOW a big bang could never create matter. Only a supernatural force could. Add into this the mounting evidence against the big bang idea, and it begins to look more and more silly. The conservation of angular momentum, Hoyle's gas laws, the lack of matter, the very existence of binary systems refuted the idea that a massive explosion of nothing created everything.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

I don't think you understand what the big bang is or the machanisms that produces the universe we see today.

There are even 3 more logical explanations for the red shift(considering even stars we know are getting closer are red shifted)
1) Gravitational red shift
2) second-order doppler shift (I believe the most likely candidate)
3) energy loss shift.
All three of these are far more likely, and have more proof of their being correct than the speed red shift.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

Do you have links to sources that analyze these possibilities in detail? In particular the 2nd one, since you think it is most likely.

 

[Martyrs44]

I was asking about the second law of thermodynamics. You don't think it's at all possible that they could be wrong about it?

Why would we ask if a well established law of science is wrong since after countless experiments and all observations prove that it is true? IT is equivalent to the 'curse' God placed on the world after Adam's sin. Gen. 3:17 & Romans 8:22.

Your wording of the first law of thermodynamics isn't too important. What is the wording of the law itself as scientists describe it?

I gave you the correct wording in the definition from its scientific source. That was not an opinion in that definition.

But to further define it from other well known sources:

Quote: The nineteenth century law of conservation of energy is a law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time. The total energy is said to be conserved over time. For an isolated system, this law means that energy can change its location within the system, and that it can change form within the system, for instance chemical energy can become kinetic energy, but that energy can be neither created nor destroyed.

(Wikipedia)​

law of conservation of matter - a fundamental principle of classical physics that matter cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system

(The Free Dictionary)​

I will not make further comment on this post so that you will have to deal with the actual definition as established natural law.​

 

[Metal Minister]

I don't think you understand what the big bang is or the machanisms that produces the universe we see today.
Do you have links to sources that analyze these possibilities in detail? In particular the 2nd one, since you think it is most likely.

Actually, the book Science Vs Evolution is a great resource. Heres a "reader's digest" version (lol):
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_TOC.htm
It's quite fascinating reading and uses science and scientific principles to show how things such as the big bang are impossible. I've found that most people have a preconceived notion that our solar system, and even the milky way are stationary, yet its obvious that everything is spinning.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[philadiddle]

Why would we ask if a well established law of science is wrong since after countless experiments and all observations prove that it is true? IT is equivalent to the 'curse' God placed on the world after Adam's sin. Gen. 3:17 & Romans 8:22.

So scientists are capable of performing experiments to verify things?

law of conservation of matter - a fundamental principle of classical physics that matter cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system

(The Free Dictionary)​

This is different than what you said. You said that physical processes cannot create or destroy matter/energy.

 

[philadiddle]

Actually, the book Science Vs Evolution is a great resource. Heres a "reader's digest" version (lol):
CREATION-EVOLUTION ENCYCLOPEDIA
It's quite fascinating reading and uses science and scientific principles to show how things such as the big bang are impossible. I've found that most people have a preconceived notion that our solar system, and even the milky way are stationary, yet its obvious that everything is spinning.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

You'll have to direct me to the part that you think is relavent. I'm not going to read through all of that.

 

[Metal Minister]

You'll have to direct me to the part that you think is relavent. I'm not going to read through all of that.

Actually all you have to do is click on the part that says stellar evolution. There is alot of very good information there. If you have trouble finding it, I'll try to copy and paste it for you.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[Martyrs44]

So scientists are capable of performing experiments to verify things?

??? Where did I ever suggest otherwise? The second Law certinaly verifies what scripture tells us about degeneration and the curse of death because of sin.

This is different than what you said. You said that physical processes cannot create or destroy matter/energy.

No, it is not.

Sir, I don't know who you are & I don't mean to insult you but you are beginning to make me wonder if you can handle this subject.

If indeed, 'matter/mass can neither be created nor destroyed' then what in nature can create something from nothing? Name any natural process that can create anything from no thing.

 

[philadiddle]

Actually all you have to do is click on the part that says stellar evolution. There is alot of very good information there. If you have trouble finding it, I'll try to copy and paste it for you.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

Again, I won't bother reading through all that. I skimmed it a bit and there seems to be a big misunderstanding of what the big bang is and how physics works. If there is a particular argument in there that you would like to focus on I would gladly do that. I don't have the time in the day to respond to every point on that page and instead of cherry-picking an argument I'll let you choose which one we can discuss.

 

[philadiddle]

??? Where did I ever suggest otherwise?

Well they have done a lot of experiments and field work to verify the age of the earth, the age of the universe, and biological evolution. Yet you dismiss their ability to do so. Your view suggests that you don't think scientists are capable of carrying out experiments and studying data to arrive at any kind of reliable conclusion. But of course, if what they say suites your assumptions then I guess they are right about those things.

If indeed, 'matter/mass can neither be created nor destroyed' then what in nature can create something from nothing? Name any natural process that can create anything from no thing.

Vacuum Fluctuation.

 

[Metal Minister]

Again, I won't bother reading through all that. I skimmed it a bit and there seems to be a big misunderstanding of what the big bang is and how physics works. If there is a particular argument in there that you would like to focus on I would gladly do that. I don't have the time in the day to respond to every point on that page and instead of cherry-picking an argument I'll let you choose which one we can discuss.

How is there a misunderstanding of the big bang and physics? It opens with the direct quotes and information directly from those who invented the theory and discovered the laws...

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[Martyrs44]

Well they have done a lot of experiments and field work to verify the age of the earth, the age of the universe, and biological evolution. Yet you dismiss their ability to do so. Your view suggests that you don't think scientists are capable of carrying out experiments and studying data to arrive at any kind of reliable conclusion. But of course, if what they say suites your assumptions then I guess they are right about those things.

So you trust in their guesswork rather than in God's servant, Moses, whom Jesus said told the truth in what he wrote. (i.e. Luke 24). There isn't a single dating method in existence that is not fraught with assumptions; assumptions about the amount of radioactivity at the origin of the samples they test. They calibrate their results based upon an priori guess about that amount but they have no way of knowing.

Vacuum Fluctuation.

No. A 'virtual blip' that lasts for less than a nanosecond doesn't qualify. Those 'blips' do not create anything that can be lastingly physical or measurable. They don't even know for certain what that 'blip' is. So unless you can produce from the 'vacuum fluctuation' argument something that is physical matter that lasts...then how could that be evidence for a real, lasting, visible creation like that we see about us every moment of every day?

Quote: "Virtual particles are viewed as the quanta that describe fields of the basic force interactions, which cannot be described in terms of real particles." Wikipedia.

Why do you think they are called 'virtual' particles in the first place?

Definition: virtual - "being in essence or in effect though not formally recognized or admitted."

Sir, are you a Christian? If not then why are you here? If so, then why don't you believe the plainly written Word of God about this matter?

"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:" The ten commandments; Exodus 20:11.

God is not only the Creator and the only one that can create...by scripture, but by natural law for nature cannot create.

 

[philadiddle]

How is there a misunderstanding of the big bang and physics? It opens with the direct quotes and information directly from those who invented the theory and discovered the laws...

May God Richly Bless You! MM

The article doesn't even understand what "nothing" means in physics when discussing the big bang.

 

[philadiddle]

So you trust in their guesswork rather than in God's servant, Moses, whom Jesus said told the truth in what he wrote. (i.e. Luke 24). There isn't a single dating method in existence that is not fraught with assumptions; assumptions about the amount of radioactivity at the origin of the samples they test. They calibrate their results based upon an priori guess about that amount but they have no way of knowing.

So now scientists are just making wild guesses and aren't actually doing science. How convenient.

No. A 'virtual blip' that lasts for less than a nanosecond doesn't qualify. Those 'blips' do not create anything that can be lastingly physical or measurable. They don't even know for certain what that 'blip' is. So unless you can produce from the 'vacuum fluctuation' argument something that is physical matter that lasts...then how could that be evidence for a real, lasting, visible creation like that we see about us every moment of every day?

But the blip exists. Even if we don't know what it is you asked for an example of something from nothing and I gave you one.

Quote: "Virtual particles are viewed as the quanta that describe fields of the basic force interactions, which cannot be described in terms of real particles." Wikipedia.

Yet these virtual particles have a measurable effect on reality. So they do exist, even if we use the word "virtual" to describe them. From the same paragraph you took your quote mine from:

the energy carried from one winding of a transformer to another, or to and from a patient in an MRI scanner, in quantum terms is carried by virtual photons, not real photons

They exist, that is a fact. We may not fully understand them and we may not be able to describe them in terms of more familiar particles but they do exist, and they appear to come from nothing.

Sir, are you a Christian? If not then why are you here? If so, then why don't you believe the plainly written Word of God about this matter?

I believe the meaning of the text and I believe what it explains as far as man, God, sin, the need for salvation, and our relationship with God and other living things. I don't accept your scientific interpretation of it.

 

[Martyrs44]

The article doesn't even understand what "nothing" means in physics when discussing the big bang.

Definition: Nothing - 'something that does not exist
2 : ZERO.'

It is those who believe in the so-called 'singularity' who don't know what 'nothing' means. Their beliefs are in direct conflict with the 1st law of Thermodynamics.

 

[Metal Minister]

A. Vilenkin, "Creation of universe from nothing", Phys. Lett. B, 117B, 25-28 (1982).

But see also, using other words but with similar meaning: S. W. Hawking, N. Turok, "Open inflation without false vacua", Phys. Lett. B, 425, 25 (1998).

The meaning of "nothing" is here extremely characterised, eg it means that the classical 3-geometry and matter vanishes entirely.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[philadiddle]

Definition: Nothing - 'something that does not exist
2 : ZERO.'

It is those who believe in the so-called 'singularity' who don't know what 'nothing' means. Their beliefs are in direct conflict with the 1st law of Thermodynamics.

These are the limitations we face with the english language, not with the physics behind the big bang. Like I said, the article (and you) doesn't understand what "nothing" means IN PHYSICS WHEN DISCUSSING THE BIG BANG.

 

[philadiddle]

A. Vilenkin, "Creation of universe from nothing", Phys. Lett. B, 117B, 25-28 (1982).

But see also, using other words but with similar meaning: S. W. Hawking, N. Turok, "Open inflation without false vacua", Phys. Lett. B, 425, 25 (1998).

The meaning of "nothing" is here extremely characterised, eg it means that the classical 3-geometry and matter vanishes entirely.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

Are you two the same person? All posts within 10 minutes and these last two are in response to the post of mine.

You gave references to some papers. What's in those papers that I should be reading?

 

[Metal Minister]

Are you two the same person? All posts within 10 minutes and these last two are in response to the post of mine.

You gave references to some papers. What's in those papers that I should be reading?

The scientists definition of nothing being exactly that...nothing.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[philadiddle]

The scientists definition of nothing being exactly that...nothing.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

Google it. You may learn something.

 

[Martyrs44]

So now scientists are just making wild guesses and aren't actually doing science. How convenient.

In some cases, quite true. Even Hawking admitted he was wrong about black holes. It happens often, especially when they guess about origins when in fact they have no observable evidence to prove that their theories are correct.

But the blip exists. Even if we don't know what it is you asked for an example of something from nothing and I gave you one.

Then tell the readers what those 'virtual' blips are before you say another thing about them.

Yet these virtual particles have a measurable effect on reality. So they do exist, even if we use the word "virtual" to describe them. From the same paragraph you took your quote mine from:

Don't call it a quote mine. That was a very long article and it is impractical to quote the whole thing. Besides that, I am not finished.

the energy carried from one winding of a transformer to another, or to and from a patient in an MRI

scanner, in quantum terms is carried by virtual photons, not real photons

They exist, that is a fact. We may not fully understand them and we may not be able to describe them in terms of more familiar particles but they do exist, and they appear to come from nothing.

So? You're saying the 1st Law is wrong after all? Name one of those 'virtual particles' that lasts and helps to make up the physical, material world we live in and we can measure with lasting certainty. Take the mystery out of it and explain how it does not violate the 1st law.

Do you know that what you are saying is predicated on the 'uncertainty principle'?

Are you saying that nature can create itself after all and the Creator God is not needed? Are you saying that His plainly revealed Word is in error?

'Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary?' Isaiah 40

'I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;' Isaiah 44;24

Do you understand what the word, 'all' means?

I have given you both scripture and scientific law that tells us that (1) God is the Creator and the only One who can create, and (2) natural law that tells us that nature cannot create. But you have rejected both. You are one who believes that Darwinian evolution is the reason for our existence and that God used evolution despite the fact that none of the authors of the inspired text even mentions such a theory.

I believe the meaning of the text and I believe what it explains as far as man, God, sin, the need for salvation, and our relationship with God and other living things. I don't accept your scientific interpretation of it.

I am not giving you MY interpretation of it. I am giving you the science of the matter & documenting it from well known sources. I am giving you the truth as the prophets, apostles, and the Lord Jesus Christ state it in no uncertain terms: i.e. the six day creation as mentioned in Exodus 20: 11. I could also have added Jesus verification of the creation of Adam & Eve in Mark 10:6, the fall of man in sin by Paul in Romans & I Corinthians, i.e.

Why should any Christian believe you & those of your persuasion and not them?