Science Proves Creation

[MissRowy]

The First Law of Thermodynamics is what breaks down in a singularity; but if a Scientific Law doesn't hold true at all times; it isn't a Law. It gets downgraded to, at best, a really, really really, good guess.

Dude you are way wrong..If you'd actually paid attention in science you'd know that the 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system

 

[HARK!]

I'm guessing you don't actually understand science.

Well what do you know?

Good guess!

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.

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.

 

[HARK!]

If you'd actually paid attention in science you'd know that the 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed

Exactly!

See how that law breaks down in a singularity?

Thinking? Thinking? Keep trying.

 

[Astrophile]

If there was an infinite amount of matter; there wouldn't be any space between the earth and the moon.

If there was an infinite amount of energy; there would be an infinite amount of heat.

space
/spās/
noun

• 1. a continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied: "a table took up much of the space" synonyms room, expanse, extent, capacity, area, ... more
• 2. the dimensions of height, depth, and width within which all things exist and move:

But if space is infinite and the mass density of matter and energy is finite (i.e. non-zero) everywhere, then the total mass of the universe must be infinite.

 

[HARK!]

But if space is infinite and the mass density of matter and energy is finite (i.e. non-zero) everywhere, then the total mass of the universe must be infinite.

The mass density, in any given part of space, is irrelevant to your postulate. However if matter and energy were distributed over the entirety of infinite space; then matter and energy would be infinite; but the empirical evidence doesn't support this.

 

[Shemjaza]

The mass density, in any given part of space, is irrelevant to your postulate. However if matter and energy were distributed over the entirety of infinite space; then matter and energy would be infinite; but the empirical evidence doesn't support this.

What evidence?

You still haven't acknowledged that space and time can be distorted by gravity and relative velocity.

 

[HARK!]

What evidence?

the empirical evidence

 

[Lazarus Long]

How do you know what any god's name is in any language?

 

[Ophiolite]

However it is your hypothetical and contradictory or not you are free to use whatever language you choose to make your point; and I as an observer is free to point out what I see as contradictions.

I am not so presumptive and arrogant as to use terminology that is well defined by experts, in the relevant field, in a different way.

If I had taken a decade to acquire the basics in cosmology, via a bachelors degree or two and a doctorate, then a further decade to establish a reputation as a leader in the field, I might then be entitled to alter the usage of "universe" as established and accepted by my peers. Otherwise the polite, sensible and humble approach is to keep my ill-informed opinion to myself. Consequently, I shall express no problem with, nor see any supposed contradiction in "island universes", "multiverses", or the disinterest in the "all that exists" definition. And you are free to face the consequences of the alternative route.

 

[Ken-1122]

I am not so presumptive and arrogant as to use terminology that is well defined by experts, in the relevant field, in a different way.

If I had taken a decade to acquire the basics in cosmology, via a bachelors degree or two and a doctorate, then a further decade to establish a reputation as a leader in the field, I might then be entitled to alter the usage of "universe" as established and accepted by my peers. Otherwise the polite, sensible and humble approach is to keep my ill-informed opinion to myself. Consequently, I shall express no problem with, nor see any supposed contradiction in "island universes", "multiverses", or the disinterest in the "all that exists" definition. And you are free to face the consequences of the alternative route.

In debating circles, I think they call that “the argument of authority”; The idea that no matter how absurd their claim may be, because they’re bigger than me, smarter than me, more powerful than me, have authority over me; etc. etc. I am required to accept their absurdity without question. I remember in my Christian days they used to say, “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!” I refused to accept religious authority back then, and I’ll be darned if I’m going to accept scientific authority now! If it doesn’t make sense, I’m gonna question it. And as far as these consequences of questioning authority that you speak of? As George Bush said; “BRING IT ON!!!

I’m reminded of a saying;

One thing the very powerful and the insane have in common is that they never alter their views to fit reality, they alter reality to fit their views.

Consequences or not, I don’t care if you’re as mad as a hatter, or as powerful as the President, if you say something that doesn’t make sense to me, I’m gonna question it.

 

[Ophiolite]

In debating circles, I think they call that “the argument of authority”; The idea that no matter how absurd their claim may be, because they’re bigger than me, smarter than me, more powerful than me, have authority over me; etc. etc. I am required to accept their absurdity without question. I remember in my Christian days they used to say, “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!” I refused to accept religious authority back then, and I’ll be darned if I’m going to accept scientific authority now! If it doesn’t make sense, I’m gonna question it. And as far as these consequences of questioning authority that you speak of? As George Bush said; “BRING IT ON!!!

I’m reminded of a saying;

One thing the very powerful and the insane have in common is that they never alter their views to fit reality, they alter reality to fit their views.

Consequences or not, I don’t care if you’re as mad as a hatter, or as powerful as the President, if you say something that doesn’t make sense to me, I’m gonna question it.

Way to miss a point!

In any field the participants in that field get to make the definitions for use in that field. The definitions are applicable within that field. The experts do not insist the definitions be used outside that field, or in colloquial usage.

It seems that only a bizarre combination of arrogance and ignorance could make someone think they have have a right to insist that their definitions, dictionary definitions, or colloquial definitions should be used within the field. I really hope you do not have such arrogance and ignorance. But if something doesn't make sense to you, it might be time to consider why you are having that problem.

I'm done here.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

In debating circles, I think they call that “the argument of authority”; The idea that no matter how absurd their claim may be, because they’re bigger than me, smarter than me, more powerful than me, have authority over me; etc. etc. I am required to accept their absurdity without question. I remember in my Christian days they used to say, “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!” I refused to accept religious authority back then, and I’ll be darned if I’m going to accept scientific authority now! If it doesn’t make sense, I’m gonna question it. And as far as these consequences of questioning authority that you speak of? As George Bush said; “BRING IT ON!!!

I’m reminded of a saying;

One thing the very powerful and the insane have in common is that they never alter their views to fit reality, they alter reality to fit their views.

Consequences or not, I don’t care if you’re as mad as a hatter, or as powerful as the President, if you say something that doesn’t make sense to me, I’m gonna question it.

Have you ever thought the dictionary definition may need updating? Words can change meaning over time.

 

[Job 33:6]

But if space is infinite and the mass density of matter and energy is finite (i.e. non-zero) everywhere, then the total mass of the universe must be infinite.

A side note:

Why does your account say "newbie" under your name? You've been around longer than I have.

 

[Kylie]

Well what do you know?

Good guess!

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.

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.

So by your own admission you do not understand science. So what makes you think that your claims in post 159 are correct? Are you open to learning about the things you are talking about?

 

[HARK!]

So by your own admission you do not understand science.

Who does? In my decades of work, I've witnessed too many examples, which defy the Laws of Physics, to claim that the laws always apply. Even if I could; that wouldn't be a very scientific position. Through experiments done from a QM perspective, every Newtonian law has been violated. If you say that you truly understand science; I would suggest that you haven't applied yourself enough to test the limits of your potential.

So what makes you think that your claims in post 159 are correct?

See the OP

Are you open to learning about the things you are talking about?

I never stop learning.

 

[Kylie]

Who does?

Scientists.

In my decades of work, I've witnessed too many examples, which defy the Laws of Physics, to claim that the laws always apply.

Care to give examples? ANd care to show why these claims are more reliable than anecdote?

Even if I could; that wouldn't be a very scientific position. Through experiments done from a QM perspective, every Newtonian law has been violated. If you say that you truly understand science; I would suggest that you haven't applied yourself enough to test the limits of your potential.

You don't seem to understand science. Newtonian laws are only kept because they work pretty well at describing the stuff we see in our everyday world. We know they aren't correct, and Newtonian physics has been replaced by General Relativity. But the Newtonian laws are very close to accurate in the everyday world, certainly close enough to use reliably, and they are much easier to work with than relativity, and that is why we keep them.

See the OP

Which specific part?

I never stop learning.

It does not seem that way.

 

[HARK!]

You don't seem to understand science. Newtonian laws are only kept because they work pretty well at describing the stuff we see in our everyday world. We know they aren't correct, and Newtonian physics has been replaced by General Relativity. But the Newtonian laws are very close to accurate in the everyday world, certainly close enough to use reliably, and they are much easier to work with than relativity, and that is why we keep them.

You don't seem to understand Newtonian Physics, nor GR. GR is not a refinement of say OHM's Law, nor say Boyle's Law.

 

[HARK!]

Care to give examples? ANd care to show why these claims are more reliable than anecdote?

The cases I speak of ARE anecdotes; but that's irrelevant. I'll reiterate the point, since it seems that slipped by you the first time.

If a Law does not apply at all time; it's not a Law. It can be nothing more than a really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, good guess.

Again every Newtonian law has caved in QM experiments.

I saw a really simple one which involved an internal combustion engine. If you feed the engine more fuel it would reason that it would turn faster. This can be calculated using laws of science; but upon closer inspection there are nodes in in the RPM band, where the plane bearing of the crank shaft, instead of acting as a place bearing, and spinning; the crank rolls on the outer bearing. This causes a significant drop in efficiency. One would never notice theses nodes by making a natural sweep in acceleration; but in a tightly controlled situation this phenomenon can be made apparent. The fact is that these nodes occur in every engine; and effect the truly accurate calculations for HP. Until recently these factors were unknown.

This is a very basic example that most people can understand; but there are seemingly endless factors that science in unaware of.

 

[Kylie]

You don't seem to understand Newtonian Physics, nor GR. GR is not a refinement of say OHM's Law, nor say Boyle's Law.

How about you actually make your point.

And how about you address all the other parts of my post which you ignored?

 

[HARK!]

How about you actually make your point.

I already made my point; before you presented your nonsensical challenge.