Is Creationism a Fairy Tale?

[lasthero]

Is the Multiverse theory yet another topic you know nothing about?

Please, enlighten. Where can I read more about this 'multiverse theory'?

 

[lasthero]

What exactly is the problem with that?

It's ridiculous - you can't make accurate predictions of something with only one example of it. There's no way to know that life is completely impossible in some other universe with different laws - all we have is this universe with the laws as they are.

 

[Aman777]

Hm? Energy is a conserved quantity, there won't be more or less of it a hundred trillion years from now than there is today.

Dear JWGU, False, since God has an endless supply. It's HOW He took that which does not appear and made everything with exists physically. IOW, He changed His endless supply of energy into matter.

1Ti 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the Light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

I don't know enough about Big Bang cosmology to be able to accurately tell you "where the energy came from" but my gut suspicion would be that the energy was already there "before", or at least simultaneous to, the Big Bang (and consequently time). As far as pools go, I never said anything about pools or other universes.

It's simple. Jesus took some of the air, dust, and water, which God created BEFORE the first Day and "inflated" it. This happened on the THIRD Day, and was the beginning of our 2nd Universe. Genesis 2:4 Science agrees and dates the beginning of our world at 13.7 Billion years ago, in Man's time.

Hbr 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

In Love,
Aman

 

[JWGU]

Dear JWGU, False, since God has an endless supply. It's HOW He took that which does not appear and made everything with exists physically. IOW, He changed His endless supply of energy into matter.

1Ti 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the Light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.



It's simple. Jesus took some of the air, dust, and water, which God created BEFORE the first Day and "inflated" it. This happened on the THIRD Day, and was the beginning of our 2nd Universe. Genesis 2:4 Science agrees and dates the beginning of our world at 13.7 Billion years ago, in Man's time.

Hbr 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

In Love,
Aman

I'm not going to argue with you because I judge that to be a colossal waste of time. I will, however, note that I prefer to keep God where He belongs--as far away from science as is possible--rather than invoking Him to try to justify falsified beliefs about the universe.

 

[lasthero]

I'm not going to argue with you because I judge that to be a colossal waste of time.

I dub thee wise.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Please, enlighten. Where can I read more about this 'multiverse theory'?

Ever heard of Google? surely you can't be THAT lazy

 

[nuttypiglet]

Hm? Energy is a conserved quantity, there won't be more or less of it a hundred trillion years from now than there is today. I don't know enough about Big Bang cosmology to be able to accurately tell you "where the energy came from" but my gut suspicion would be that the energy was already there "before", or at least simultaneous to, the Big Bang (and consequently time). As far as pools go, I never said anything about pools or other universes.

So no energy has become matter? and no energy is used in Suns? You are correct to say that in a closed system, the contents remain the same in total, but energy itself will be depleted, unless you can of course turn matter back into energy. Then we would have to sacrifice everything to get energy back again.

 

[nuttypiglet]

So when you talk about how fine-tuned the universe is, you're working with a sample set of exactly one. Just one universe. Only this one. Do you not see the problem with that?

No? not at all. If it's the only one, then what else matters? How many of YOU are there in this Universe? Are you unique do you think?

 

[JWGU]

So no energy has become matter?

Matter is a form of energy.

and no energy is used in Suns?

Energy is used without being destroyed.

You are correct to say that in a closed system, the contents remain the same in total, but energy itself will be depleted, unless you can of course turn matter back into energy. Then we would have to sacrifice everything to get energy back again.

Turning matter into energy is not so hard. In fact, it happens with extremely high frequency. The problem (as elucidated by the Second Law of Thermodynamics) is creating a macro-level temperature gradient. But why is it necessary for us to "get energy back," anyway? Why can't the universe just wind down and die? (This is a hard question for some humanists as well, incidentally!)

 

[lasthero]

Ever heard of Google? surely you can't be THAT lazy

Predictable.

As it turns out, a Google search doesn't turn up anything about a 'multiverse theory', either. It shows some hypotheses, but not an actual theory named as such. So.

 

[lasthero]

No? not at all. If it's the only one, then what else matters? How many of YOU are there in this Universe? Are you unique do you think?

If it's the only one you have to work with, speculating about the probability of it existing is meaningless. It's completely untestable, for one thing. At best, you could say that life as we know it could only exist in a universe like this, but even that's a vacuous statement, because you have no way of showing that to be true, or even showing that, in another universe, the constants would change.

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by JWGU

I'm not going to argue with you because I judge that to be a colossal waste of time.
​

I dub thee wise.

Dear Readers, Wonder what people who stick their heads in the sand are doing on a message board? The reason the first doesn't answer is because he has convinced himself that he knows everything and doesn't want to be bothered by God, since he knows more than God, in his own opinion.

The second just wants to avoid defeat since he has been so soundly defeated by God's Holy Word and wants to avoid this event happening again. Of course I'm only guessing since neither of these people seems able to work up the courage to defend their false beliefs. So be it.

In Love,
Aman

 

[JWGU]

Originally Posted by JWGU

I'm not going to argue with you because I judge that to be a colossal waste of time.
​

Dear Readers, Wonder what people who stick their heads in the sand are doing on a message board? The reason the first doesn't answer is because he has convinced himself that he knows everything and doesn't want to be bothered by God, since he knows more than God, in his own opinion.

On the contrary--I am convinced that I actually know next to nothing about God, and that God is probably unknowable in the classical sense. It is you who are ascribing specific actions and histories to God, not I. But that's not why I'm not arguing with you. I think you will know why I have engaged everyone else who responded to me but will not engage you, but just to clarify: when the person with whom you are trying to have a discussion does not actually respond to the points you make, or does not accept the very fundamental postulates that would make them valid points, there can be no real discussion, only noise. That is the pattern I have observed with you time and time again.

The second just wants to avoid defeat since he has been so soundly defeated by God's Holy Word and wants to avoid this event happening again. Of course I'm only guessing since neither of these people seems able to work up the courage to defend their false beliefs. So be it.

In Love,
Aman

If you can convince me that you are actually willing to have a serious scientific discussion, I will "defend" evolution quite competently (not that it really needs defending--I see such discussions more as an opportunity for both parties to learn more about the underlying science of biology). But I am thoroughly unconvinced of that.

 

[Aman777]

If it's the only one you have to work with, speculating about the probability of it existing is meaningless. It's completely untestable, for one thing. At best, you could say that life as we know it could only exist in a universe like this, but even that's a vacuous statement, because you have no way of showing that to be true, or even showing that, in another universe, the constants would change.

Dear Readers, Life will be found all over our Cosmos because God commanded that every living creature be created and brought forth from the water, on the 5th Day. Genesis 1:21 Science agrees and tells us the FIRST bacteria appeared some 3.7 Billion years ago, in man's time.

We already KNOW that life came forth on Adam's world since Cain married one of the descendants of the sons of God (Prehistoric people) who came forth from the water. Scripture tells us to mix the sons of God and Adam''s descendants is to reduce man's lifespan by 90%, but the Offspring of this union will change the sons of God from animal to Human intelligence. Genesis 6:4

Life also came forth from the water, on the present world, when God's command went out into all the Creation. This means that wherever we find liquid water, we will find Life throughout our Cosmos. We will NOT find Human life anywhere else in our Universe since there was but ONE Ark, which brought Humanity to our Planet of Apes.

Prehistoric people do NOT evolve into Humans no matter how much time, drift, and magical mutations you give them. This is one of the discoveries which mankind will soon make. Then, it will be apparent to EVERYone that the False ToE is a Satanic Lie of Godless men who reject God's Truth.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, I wouldn't say so, really. There's not much to "drive" anyway since it isn't a theory, just an interpretation. It's like Bayesianism vs. frequentism--both give the same results.

I respectfully disagree. The string theory and multiverse theories are being driven hard by many scientists and the reason is that they know that the fine tuning of the universe creates an insurmountable problem if there is not some theory provided to explain it.

 

[Aman777]

If you can convince me that you are actually willing to have a serious scientific discussion, I will "defend" evolution quite competently (not that it really needs defending--I see such discussions more as an opportunity for both parties to learn more about the underlying science of biology). But I am thoroughly unconvinced of that.

Dear JWGU, I predict that you will run away when you realize what a Lie the False ToE is. We will see.

The reason the ToE is a so wrong is that it falsely assumes that this is the only Earth. Assuming that Human life began on our Planet is ridiculous to those of us who believe what God told us. God told us Adam was made on another world, a world which was totally surrounded by water and made the SECOND Day of the Creation. Gen. 1:6-8

God also tells us He made other "heavens" or worlds on the THIRD Day. Genesis 2:4 This means that we live in a Multiverse consisting of at least 3 separate worlds or Universes. Our Cosmos is the 2nd world made.

Falsely assuming that there are no other worlds, Evols have made up a Theory to explain How and When the common ancestor of Apes evolved into Humans. They have found that Humans contain the DNA and ERVs of the common ancestor of Apes and FALSELY concluded that we MUST have evolved from these animals.

The False Theory that we evolved from the common ancestor of Apes is explained when one realizes that Humans were made long BEFORE ANY other living creature. Genesis 2:4-7 shows that man was "formed of the dust of the ground" Billions of years BEFORE the common ancestor of Apes was made, making it impossible that Humans evolved from Apes.

Can you explain WHY you follow an incomplete Theory which does NOT take into account the Fact that the first Human was made on another world? Or is it just because you reject anthing but man's changable Theories, which cannot explain How or When we magically evolved our Human intelligence from mindless Nature?

In Love,
Aman

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's ridiculous - you can't make accurate predictions of something with only one example of it. There's no way to know that life is completely impossible in some other universe with different laws - all we have is this universe with the laws as they are.

Considering this is all we have for the moment, and considering that we can only test our own universe we have a scientific conundrum. Fine tuning for the universe is inescapable. You either come up with an alternate theory or we are back to God which Science can not accept. To accept that God exists to most Scientists makes Science null and void. I don't agree with that but most I think feel that is the case.

 

[JWGU]

Dear JWGU, I predict that you will run away when you realize what a Lie the False ToE is. We will see.

The reason the ToE is a so wrong is that it falsely assumes that this is the only Earth. Assuming that Human life began on our Planet is ridiculous to those of us who believe what God told us. God told us Adam was made on another world, a world which was totally surrounded by water and made the SECOND Day of the Creation. Gen. 1:6-8

God also tells us He made other "heavens" or worlds on the THIRD Day. Genesis 2:4 This means that we live in a Multiverse consisting of at least 3 separate worlds or Universes. Our Cosmos is the 2nd world made.

Falsely assuming that there are no other worlds, Evols have made up a Theory to explain How and When the common ancestor of Apes evolved into Humans. They have found that Humans contain the DNA and ERVs of the common ancestor of Apes and FALSELY concluded that we MUST have evolved from these animals.

The False Theory that we evolved from the common ancestor of Apes is explained when one realizes that Humans were made long BEFORE ANY other living creature. Genesis 2:4-7 shows that man was "formed of the dust of the ground" Billions of years BEFORE the common ancestor of Apes was made, making it impossible that Humans evolved from Apes.

Can you explain WHY you follow an incomplete Theory which does NOT take into account the Fact that the first Human was made on another world? Or is it just because you reject anthing but man's changable Theories, which cannot explain How or When we magically evolved our Human intelligence from mindless Nature?

In Love,
Aman

Please try writing a response to me on a different theme from what appears to be virtually every post you make. I already know your theory, and I already know why it is falsified--and so do you, because you've been told it time and time again. It's like having a discussion with a pamphlet. No matter how what you say to it, it will always espouse the same thing. Try something new or don't expect people to care what you have to say.

I respectfully disagree. The string theory and multiverse theories are being driven hard by many scientists and the reason is that they know that the fine tuning of the universe creates an insurmountable problem if there is not some theory provided to explain it.

String theory is another matter entirely. I am not really happy with string theory and consider it a largely unfalsifiable, quasi-religious branch of "science." But the multiverse interpretation? Ehhh. It just isn't all that interesting if we can't access the "other" universes, and there's no reason to believe that we can. To me, I think the fact that some people actually believe life could only exist in a universe like ours is a sign that people are not thinking very creatively. All life doesn't have to look like life on earth (and arguably, certain species of archaea don't even look like life on earth )

 

[lasthero]

You either come up with an alternate theory or we are back to God which Science can not accept.

That's a false dichotomy. Even if ideas about the multiverse are shown to be complete bunk, god - and certainly not any particular version of god - does not win by default. If we have two competing ideas and one is shown to be false, we don't automatically assume the other idea is correct. You still have to build support for the other idea. If we have two suspects we think murdered someone, and we show that one of the suspects could not have committed the crime, we do not automatically throw the other suspect in prison simply because we can't imagine anyone else that could have done it. We still have to build a case against the other suspect. Such is the case, here.

To accept that God exists to most Scientists makes Science null and void.

What scientist ever said such a thing? Even if God does exist, the natural world is still a real thing that can be studied, so science has a place. On top of that, there are many, many religious scientists in all manner of fields, probably more so than there are atheistic ones.

 

[Herman Hedning]

String theory is another matter entirely. I am not really happy with string theory and consider it a largely unfalsifiable, quasi-religious branch of "science."

Quasi-religious? How do you figure that? And why is science in scare quotes?