Science Proves Creation

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,525
9,496
✟236,500.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
It appears that you are missing the option that both are possible. For example, "spin" means to revolve or twirl. It also denotes a property of fundamental particles which does not necessarily involve literal twirling. It can also mean using a spinning wheel, a definition which is no longer much used.
No longer much used? Not in my house. Spinning wheel in the bedroom, spinning wheel in the drawing room, spinning wheel in the hall. Raw wool everywhere. The constant click of the wheel. The incessant bleating of the sheep!

You could also add spin, a positive, possibly distorted, interpretation of potentially negative news, especially in a political situation.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Speedwell
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,687
8,038
US
✟1,060,793.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
What if space is vaster then the scope of infinite matter?

It is; but you haven't demonstrated that matter is infinite. Scientists can approximate the quantity of matter in the Universe; by the same logic that scientist approximate its' age.

What if space is growing?

Growing into what? Space? Again, what do you suppose is on the other side of your imaginary boundaries of space?

The shape of space time doesn't have to be flat.

If you take time to read my previous posts; you'll see my arguments that space is three dimensional. We live in a three dimensional world; which occupies three dimensions of space. Space = 3D. Area = 2D.

Think about about an element able to move freely in two dimensions but is on a surface of a sphere... no walls necessary, but limited space.

Your example is an example of limited limited area, not limited volume. If the element was able to move freely throughout the sphere; that would be an example of limited volume. The surface of the sphere, defines the volume of the sphere. There is still space outside of the sphere; whether or not your element can travel into that outer space.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
It is; but you haven't demonstrated that matter is infinite. Scientists can approximate the quantity of matter in the Universe; by the same logic that scientist approximate its' age.



Growing into what? Space? Again, what do you suppose is on the other side of your imaginary boundaries of space?
Not space.



If you take time to read my previous posts; you'll see my arguments that space is three dimensional. We live in a three dimensional world; which occupies three dimensions of space. Space = 3D. Area = 2D.
We "live" in a three dimensional mental construct. That does not mean that space is three dimensional.
 
Upvote 0

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟254,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
What's the difference between
a. Words change meaning over time
b. The earlier definition has fallen out of use

Perhaps I'm missing something.
I suggested you stop digging as you are making yourself look more and more foolish. Seriously, stop! You've made an erroneous claim which everyone except you can see. Learn from it and move on.
 
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,687
8,038
US
✟1,060,793.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
I've already told you that Newtonian physics has been superceded by general relativity

Did you tell me that before or after I mentioned that GR is flawed?

General Relativity Does Not Respect Local Energy-Momentum
There are serious problems with local energy-momentum conservation in general relativity (see [1] for a review). It is well known that Einstein's theory does not assign a definite stress-energy tensor to the gravitational field. This property is extremely unsatisfactory, because one knows that all other fundamental interactions in nature actually do respect the principle of local conservation of energy-momentum. Essentially, the non-existance of a stress-energy tensor is a consequence of the purely geometrical interpretation of gravity as curvature of space-time.
General Relativity Predicts Space-Time Singularities
Space-time singularities and event horizons are a consequence of general relativity, appearing in the solutions of the gravitational field. Although the "big bang" singularity and "black holes" have been an topic of intensive study in theoretical astrophysics, one can seriously doubt that such mathematical monsters should really represent physical objects. In fact, in order to predict black holes one has to extrapolate the theory of general relativity far beyond observationally known gravity strengths. Quoting Albert Einstein shows that he was quite aware of this conceptual problem: "For large densities of field and of matter, the field equations and even the field variables which enter into them will have no real significance. One may not therefore assume the validity of the equations for very high density of field and of matter, and one may not conclude that the 'beginning of the expansion' [of the universe] must mean a singularity in the mathematical sense. All we have to realize is that the equations may not be continued over such regions." [2] Many physicists would prefer a gravity theory without mathematical anomalies in its field solutions.
General Relativity Failed to Be Quantized
Quantum mechanics can be said to be the cornerstone of modern physics. For every physical field theory it should be possible to formulate it as quantum field theory. Actually, it is generally accepted that the field theories of electromagnetism or gravitation are but an approximation, the "classical limit", of more fundamental underlying quantum field theories. It is also assumed that interaction theories have to be gauge theories. The possibility of formulating gravity as quantum field theory is essential in the context of the unification of all fundamental interactions. However, all attempts to find a consistent quantum gauge field theory of general relativity have failed. This indicates again that general relativity can hardly be an absolutely correct theory of gravitation.
Towards a Consistent Theory of Gravitation
It appears that general relativity is not an adequate theory of gravitation, and that it has to be replaced by a new consistent theory.

The Flaws of General Relativity
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,810.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Did you tell me that before or after I mentioned that GR is flawed?

General Relativity Does Not Respect Local Energy-Momentum
There are serious problems with local energy-momentum conservation in general relativity (see [1] for a review). It is well known that Einstein's theory does not assign a definite stress-energy tensor to the gravitational field. This property is extremely unsatisfactory, because one knows that all other fundamental interactions in nature actually do respect the principle of local conservation of energy-momentum. Essentially, the non-existance of a stress-energy tensor is a consequence of the purely geometrical interpretation of gravity as curvature of space-time.
General Relativity Predicts Space-Time Singularities
Space-time singularities and event horizons are a consequence of general relativity, appearing in the solutions of the gravitational field. Although the "big bang" singularity and "black holes" have been an topic of intensive study in theoretical astrophysics, one can seriously doubt that such mathematical monsters should really represent physical objects. In fact, in order to predict black holes one has to extrapolate the theory of general relativity far beyond observationally known gravity strengths. Quoting Albert Einstein shows that he was quite aware of this conceptual problem: "For large densities of field and of matter, the field equations and even the field variables which enter into them will have no real significance. One may not therefore assume the validity of the equations for very high density of field and of matter, and one may not conclude that the 'beginning of the expansion' [of the universe] must mean a singularity in the mathematical sense. All we have to realize is that the equations may not be continued over such regions." [2] Many physicists would prefer a gravity theory without mathematical anomalies in its field solutions.
General Relativity Failed to Be Quantized
Quantum mechanics can be said to be the cornerstone of modern physics. For every physical field theory it should be possible to formulate it as quantum field theory. Actually, it is generally accepted that the field theories of electromagnetism or gravitation are but an approximation, the "classical limit", of more fundamental underlying quantum field theories. It is also assumed that interaction theories have to be gauge theories. The possibility of formulating gravity as quantum field theory is essential in the context of the unification of all fundamental interactions. However, all attempts to find a consistent quantum gauge field theory of general relativity have failed. This indicates again that general relativity can hardly be an absolutely correct theory of gravitation.
Towards a Consistent Theory of Gravitation
It appears that general relativity is not an adequate theory of gravitation, and that it has to be replaced by a new consistent theory.

The Flaws of General Relativity

No one is saying that GR is the answer to everything. There are things which GR doesn't work well with, which is why we developed QM. But there is, so far as I know, no issue at all where we once used GR but now use QM to explain it. And there is plenty that QM can't work with and we use GR for that stuff instead.

You seem to be saying that since GR doesn't work for EVERYTHING, it is worthless, and since QM came around after GR, that QM has superseded GR.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
It appears that you are missing the option that both are possible. For example, "spin" means to revolve or twirl. It also denotes a property of fundamental particles which does not necessarily involve literal twirling. It can also mean using a spinning wheel, a definition which is no longer much used.

"Universe" is similar. It has a variety of meanings, depending on the context. If you wish to employ a specific definition for purposes of argument then it is up to you to specify it.
I see your point. IMO I think it would have been better to have simply said the term has been expanded to mean something else as well.
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,821
45
✟917,556.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
It is; but you haven't demonstrated that matter is infinite. Scientists can approximate the quantity of matter in the Universe; by the same logic that scientist approximate its' age.
Observable universe. Different concept.

Regardless, I'm not asserting that there is either infinite matter or infinite space... I'm just pointing out that the basis for your assertions that don't have the former and do have the latter are either unjustified or actually counter evidence.

Growing into what? Space? Again, what do you suppose is on the other side of your imaginary boundaries of space?
Stretching, growing in size.

Also, no boundaries necessary.

If you take time to read my previous posts; you'll see my arguments that space is three dimensional. We live in a three dimensional world; which occupies three dimensions of space. Space = 3D. Area = 2D.
Okay, it seems you are unfamiliar with discussions and terminology about space time topology. I recommend looking up a little, even for a layman it can be fascinating.

In short, when discussing distorted 3D space it's easier to use 2D analogies.

With a flat plane standing in for undistorted, or the surface of a whirlpool to symbolise what a singularity does to space/time.

Your example is an example of limited limited area, not limited volume. If the element was able to move freely throughout the sphere; that would be an example of limited volume. The surface of the sphere, defines the volume of the sphere. There is still space outside of the sphere; whether or not your element can travel into that outer space.
It's an example of how a space can be limited without needing walls or barriers.

It's basically impossible to visualise, but you should be able to conceptualise a 3D space streetched around a fourth dimension so that while there is a limited amount of total space the way it curls back on itself means there are no barriers.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Sometimes you just have to take all of your science books, and throw them over your shoulder; forget about everything that you think that you knew; and question the reality as a child.
That would be philosophy (although there are philosophers of science): "Philosophers ask questions like children, answer them like lawyers"
 
  • Haha
Reactions: SLP
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
While I understand your point, and I even agree with you to quite a large degree (the phrase "very unique" really bugs me - is there such a thing as only a little bit unique? I don't think so!), the fact is that English does change over time. Decimate once meant to reduce by one tenth, now it means to destroy the majority. Gay once used to mean happy, but now if you say you're gay people will think you mean something else. The word "unique" is going through a similar change.
Yeah, this trend literally has me climbing the walls and tearing my hair out.
Oh, wait...
 
Upvote 0

SLP

Senior Member
May 29, 2002
2,369
660
✟21,532.00
Faith
Atheist
It took me about 30 years of intense study, excelling in my career, and teaching engineers, to realize that the more that I think that I understand, how so very little I truly understand; and that as soon as I've convinced myself that I know something; that I've resigned myself to ignorance.
Well, there's your problem.
No background in science.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ZNP

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2020
4,311
1,382
Atlanta
✟54,279.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, your wait is over.

I just pointed out to you that "the universe can't have existed for eternity" does not automatically translate to "therefor, some being created it".

It just translates into "therefor, the universe has NOT existed for eternity".
Which in turn proves that we went from nothing to the universe, the definition of creation.
 
Upvote 0

ZNP

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2020
4,311
1,382
Atlanta
✟54,279.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There are more scientists, in the appropriate fields, named Stephen (or variants of) who accept evolution than there are scientists in all fields who dismiss evolution.
Evolution does not have anything to do with creation. Creation, by definition says the universe started from 0, or in the terms of the Bible "God called not being being". Evolution on the other hand talks about how something can change over time. It never begins with nothing.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Evolution does not have anything to do with creation. Creation, by definition says the universe started from 0, or in the terms of the Bible "God called not being being".
It doesn't say that in the Bible.
Evolution on the other hand talks about how something can change over time. It never begins with nothing.
In this case, evolution talks about how life has changed and diversified since it began. Other branches of science treat of those other matters.
 
Upvote 0