What Do You Consider Evidence of the Supernatural?

[muichimotsu]

We can ignore your worthless opinion then. KCA came out of the big bang theory. What came out of evolutionary cosmology with big bang? I know. It was the fine tuning parameters from Stephen Hawking and his fellow scientists trying to describe the big bang -- which helped the creationists side.

William Lane Craig's argument, perhaps, but not Al Ghazali's arguments that Craig was utilizing, which were from the 11th century, WAY before the Big Bang theory formulated in 1927.

And there is no such thing as evolutionary cosmology, you're flat out lying now, no one calls it that but you

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It honestly makes me laugh (in a dark and sad way) that people (Creationists) still love to try and lump the theory of evolution and the Big Bang together into their "sciences that offend me and my interpretation of the Bible" column.

 

[jamesbond007]

You don't understand the problem I've raised, do you?

I do. We didn't even get to the redshift of Lemaitre and Hubble. Where did that energy come from?

I answered your questions, but none of you answer mine such as where did the big bang expand into if there is not space? How does energy start flowing if there is no time?

If you don't want to discuss, then that's fine with me. Most of the arguments being presented are not scientific, but tired atheist arguments trying to find contradictions and ad hominems. I've probably made a mistake posting a hypothesis in Creation and Evolution. Bye.

 

[Speedwell]

I do. We didn't even get to the redshift of Lemaitre and Hubble. Where did that energy come from?

I answered your questions, but none of you answer mine such as where did the big bang expand into if there is not space? How does energy start flowing if there is no time?

If you don't want to discuss, then that's fine with me. Most of the arguments being presented are not scientific, but tired atheist arguments trying to find contradictions and ad hominems. I've probably made a mistake posting a hypothesis in Creation and Evolution. Bye.

No, your mistake, as usual, was to try and make the creation/evolution discussion into a theist v. atheist argument.

 

[jamesbond007]

William Lane Craig's argument, perhaps, but not Al Ghazali's arguments that Craig was utilizing, which were from the 11th century, WAY before the Big Bang theory formulated in 1927.

And there is no such thing as evolutionary cosmology, you're flat out lying now, no one calls it that but you

It honestly makes me laugh (in a dark and sad way) that people (Creationists) still love to try and lump the theory of evolution and the Big Bang together into their "sciences that offend me and my interpretation of the Bible" column.

This is typical of atheist denial and making up lies and excuses when they don't have an answer to basic scientific questions about the big bang . Instead of being insulted, I just laugh and think this type of ignorance is poor baby. Aww.

"The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the simple go on and suffer for it." Proverbs 22:3

Even Stephen Hawking confessed about discovering the fine tuning facts (when he and his atheist scientists were trying to describe the big bang), but denying it afterward because it helped the creationists. It may not have been on his death bed, but he did it before dying. He must've felt guilty. Jeez, the stuff that he was wrong about as he continued to deny God to the very end. Maybe he cried, "Oh my multiverse!" Lol.

Did the dying Stephen Hawking really mean to strengthen the case for God? | Philip Goff

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This is typical of atheist denial and making up lies and excuses when they don't have an answer to basic scientific questions about the big bang . Instead of being insulted, I just laugh and think this type of ignorance is poor baby. Aww.

"The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the simple go on and suffer for it." Proverbs 22:3

Even Stephen Hawking confessed about discovering the fine tuning facts (when he and his atheist scientists were trying to describe the big bang), but denying it afterward because it helped the creationists. It may not have been on his death bed, but he did it before dying. He must've felt guilty. Jeez, the stuff that he was wrong about as he continued to deny God to the very end. Maybe he cried, "Oh my multiverse!" Lol.

Did the dying Stephen Hawking really mean to strengthen the case for God? | Philip Goff

Didn't really refute what I said.
The Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution are two separate scientific theories that focus on two very different aspects of science.
It's not our fault that you don't have the basic scientific knowledge to recognise that very simple fact.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes, I agreed that Earth and water (likely water vapor) were created before EMS.

This isn't possible.

Water requires water molecules.

A water molecule consists of two protons and an oxygen nucleus bound together by a cloud of 10 electrons. Those electrons are attracted to the nuclei by the electrostatic force. The force carrier for the electrostatic force (and all of electromagnetism) is the photon.

If there are atoms and molecules there is an electromagnetic field and there exists photons. To use your terms "water can't exist without the EMS." Therefore there can be no water (or water vapor) before there is light. Both can come into existence at the same time, light can come first, but water *CANNOT* come first.

The opening lines (like the OP) of Genesis were written without a proper understanding of electromagnetism and its quantization. This is not surprising since none of that was known for the next 2500 years.

(I have ignored the impact electrostatic repulsion of its protons the structure of oxygen nuclei.)

 

[jamesbond007]

This isn't possible.

Water requires water molecules.

A water molecule consists of two protons and an oxygen nucleus bound together by a cloud of 10 electrons. Those electrons are attracted to the nuclei by the electrostatic force. The force carrier for the electrostatic force (and all of electromagnetism) is the photon.

If there are atoms and molecules there is an electromagnetic field and there exists photons. To use your terms "water can't exist without the EMS." Therefore there can be no water (or water vapor) before there is light. Both can come into existence at the same time, light can come first, but water *CANNOT* come first.

The opening lines (like the OP) of Genesis were written without a proper understanding of electromagnetism and its quantization. This is not surprising since none of that was known for the next 2500 years.

(I have ignored the impact electrostatic repulsion of its protons the structure of oxygen nuclei.)

That's a good point. The verse is
"The Creation of the World
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." Genesis 1:2

This is creation ex nihilo. I think heavens mean the universe while earth is planet Earth. With the face of the deep and face of the waters is he means water vapor and probably the water as the substance for life. So while he didn't use the energy of the EMS, he just created what he wanted. Is the Earth the only planet with liquid water? I don't think we've found a planet with liquid water like Earth. I heard of below the surface of Mars and Europa, but we haven't checked yet, i.e. ice.

 

[Hans Blaster]

"The Creation of the World
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." Genesis 1:2

This is creation ex nihilo.

Yeah, so what. Light comes in the next verse. Did it exist or not in this verse?

 

[jamesbond007]

Yeah, so what. Light comes in the next verse. Did it exist or not in this verse?

So God would create things once and then it would run itself. You have to remember this is heaven on Earth that he is creating. The next verse is the light. I think he has the EMS and the visible light he uses to separate the light and dark. As to when he sets time in motion and energy to flow is subject to interpretation. It could be when he declares the light part day and dark part night (which I thought, i.e. 24 hours). Or when he sets the universe accelerating and expanding which another poster mentioned, i.e. redshift. What do you call an accelerating and expanding universe? Spacetime?

If we compare his creation so far with big bang, then it seems big bang wouldn't get off the ground. For example, where does water or water vapor come from? The Earth wouldn't be there and it would have to form. How could it end up spherical with liquid water? That's why I asked are there any other planets that we know has liquid water?

 

[Open to Interpretation]

One of things I've discovered is the Big Bang Theory from the evolutionist side does not readily explain what happened before the big bang. It wasn't an explosion, but an expansion so where did all the energy come from? I think we both agree there was a beginning from discovering the CMB. With creation science, we have the start of the spacetime caused by God -- "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1

This can be readily demonstrated by the fourth dimension and how the x, y, and z-axes follow. We usually call the fourth dimension time, but it also includes space with the other three dimensions that time can access. It becomes spacetime. Us humans, being in three dimensions cannot control time. We cannot stop it, but we can make it appear faster or slower. We can time travel into the future, but can't travel backward in time. It's strange how time can be started from evolution when it affects only the three dimensions.

Anyway, we have the universe, Earth, and everything in it as evidence for God or for evolution depending on what beliefs you hold.

I think what makes the argument stronger for God is that he also tells us that he created the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS) on the first day. "And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light." Genesis 1:3

What we find is that the EMS contains all of the energy in the universe. Later, we find both Newton and Einstein stated the fact that energy can neither be created or destroyed, but only transferred.

That's a good point. The verse is
"The Creation of the World
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." Genesis 1:2

This is creation ex nihilo. I think heavens mean the universe while earth is planet Earth. With the face of the deep and face of the waters is he means water vapor and probably the water as the substance for life. So while he didn't use the energy of the EMS, he just created what he wanted. Is the Earth the only planet with liquid water? I don't think we've found a planet with liquid water like Earth. I heard of below the surface of Mars and Europa, but we haven't checked yet, i.e. ice.

If you think

Thus, my point is does the EMS show something that is supernatural? We cannot have anything like this just pop up in our three dimensional universe as it would have to be created before the universe started to expand. It is a tremendous amount of energy that isn't present in quantum mechanics. I do agree that what Newton and Einstein discovered is part of our natural world, but not the creation of the EMS.

So, I thought where did this energy come from? The creationists have an explanation.

That's a good point. The verse is
"The Creation of the World
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." Genesis 1:2

This is creation ex nihilo. I think heavens mean the universe while earth is planet Earth. With the face of the deep and face of the waters is he means water vapor and probably the water as the substance for life. So while he didn't use the energy of the EMS, he just created what he wanted. Is the Earth the only planet with liquid water? I don't think we've found a planet with liquid water like Earth. I heard of below the surface of Mars and Europa, but we haven't checked yet, i.e. ice.

So God would create things once and then it would run itself. You have to remember this is heaven on Earth that he is creating. The next verse is the light. I think he has the EMS and the visible light he uses to separate the light and dark. As to when he sets time in motion and energy to flow is subject to interpretation. It could be when he declares the light part day and dark part night (which I thought, i.e. 24 hours). Or when he sets the universe accelerating and expanding which another poster mentioned, i.e. redshift. What do you call an accelerating and expanding universe? Spacetime?

If we compare his creation so far with big bang, then it seems big bang wouldn't get off the ground. For example, where does water or water vapor come from? The Earth wouldn't be there and it would have to form. How could it end up spherical with liquid water? That's why I asked are there any other planets that we know has liquid water?

What if the "waters" is simply referring to the fact he is staring at a dark, void universe with no beginning, no space, no time which means no motion and if you translate the original word used in Hebrew that the KJV translated to hover it is actually best translated as to move or vibrate which would mean he was moving or vibrating over a stationary universe that he intended on vibrating and making it "fluid" or setting it in motion by sending out a shockwave ripple. The spreading or expansion of the shockwave created the first "space" or distance between two points which created the first measurable "time". The first vibration of energy travelled through the first space between two points creating light.

 

[muichimotsu]

This is typical of atheist denial and making up lies and excuses when they don't have an answer to basic scientific questions about the big bang . Instead of being insulted, I just laugh and think this type of ignorance is poor baby. Aww.

"The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the simple go on and suffer for it." Proverbs 22:3

Even Stephen Hawking confessed about discovering the fine tuning facts (when he and his atheist scientists were trying to describe the big bang), but denying it afterward because it helped the creationists. It may not have been on his death bed, but he did it before dying. He must've felt guilty. Jeez, the stuff that he was wrong about as he continued to deny God to the very end. Maybe he cried, "Oh my multiverse!" Lol.

Did the dying Stephen Hawking really mean to strengthen the case for God? | Philip Goff

If you're just going to engage in passive aggressive juvenile insults, I think this conversation has shown how little you care about actually engaging in a dialogue and only condescend and otherwise show disrespect to others merely because you can't convince them with rhetoric

Fine tuning does not indicate a mind, that's anthropocentric thinking in the first place rather than considering that with enough tries, you can get something like this and it doesn't require intelligence behind the universe coming into being

 

[jamesbond007]

What if the "waters" is simply referring to the fact he is staring at a dark, void universe with no beginning, no space, no time which means no motion and if you translate the original word used in Hebrew that the KJV translated to hover it is actually best translated as to move or vibrate which would mean he was moving or vibrating over a stationary universe that he intended on vibrating and making it "fluid" or setting it in motion by sending out a shockwave ripple. The spreading or expansion of the shockwave created the first "space" or distance between two points which created the first measurable "time". The first vibration of energy travelled through the first space between two points creating light.

Interesting. It could be another interpretation.

Do you agree he created the universe (heavens) like we see expanding with big bang? What are you saying is the face of the deep, i.e. dark and void? Our planet Earth (earth)? God is working on the Earth. I've read it was formless and empty, but also seen an interpretation that it may have been covered with water vapor so we couldn't see it clearly -- the face of the deep. It follows that he has to separate the waters on day 2.

When you say hovering over the waters, I heard an interpretation that could be gravity and gravitational waves (?), but that is the most mysterious force. We can't get away from it. I have to go with the Holy Spirit created liquid water on the surface as that is what gives us life. I don't think there is another planet that we have found with liquid water, but that's a separate argument.

 

[jamesbond007]

If you're just going to engage in passive aggressive juvenile insults, I think this conversation has shown how little you care about actually engaging in a dialogue and only condescend and otherwise show disrespect to others merely because you can't convince them with rhetoric

Fine tuning does not indicate a mind, that's anthropocentric thinking in the first place rather than considering that with enough tries, you can get something like this and it doesn't require intelligence behind the universe coming into being

You don't give me much to go by with any interpretation. What it sounds to me is you're just putting one argument after another just to contradict me and at the same time insult me and then I have to answer your question while you never answer mine.

Instead, why don't you present either what you think happened as described in the Bible or give me something with the big bang that answers what it expanded into? There is no clear explanation of what existed before the big bang. I thought it started spacetime at one time, but one has to have space first. I read Hawking and he said even quantum particles need space. As for the expansion, there is a violation of the laws of physics in how fast it occurred. I'm not even sure if dark energy is what accelerates the expansion. Do you see what I'm getting at? Why don't you present what happened with your interpretation of the big bang. I've heard it explained so it follows what the Bible said (which I doubt you believe) as well a mish mosh of ideas. All you would have is the universe and a whole bunch of matter or quantum particles, i.e. nothing. I don't think you have any stars, planets, or any of that. Yet, I've heard the Earth formed a spheroid because that is the design these planets take. One has to know that ahead of time that it is a spherical shape and I find that they saw photos of Earth and are matching what happened to the end product. Where does the energy to form these heavenly bodies come from? If it is a spherical design, then wouldn't you think there was some kind of intelligence behind it? What about gravity? What about e=mc? How did all that happen? Or was it just by chance? That would be hard to swallow.

 

[Shemjaza]

Interesting. It could be another interpretation.

Do you agree he created the universe (heavens) like we see expanding with big bang? What are you saying is the face of the deep, i.e. dark and void? Our planet Earth (earth)? God is working on the Earth. I've read it was formless and empty, but also seen an interpretation that it may have been covered with water vapor so we couldn't see it clearly -- the face of the deep. It follows that he has to separate the waters on day 2.

When you say hovering over the waters, I heard an interpretation that could be gravity and gravitational waves (?), but that is the most mysterious force. We can't get away from it. I have to go with the Holy Spirit created liquid water on the surface as that is what gives us life. I don't think there is another planet that we have found with liquid water, but that's a separate argument.

Those are a some tortured interpretations for someone bouncing back to literalism when evolution and abiogenesis are discussed.

 

[Open to Interpretation]

Interesting. It could be another interpretation.

Do you agree he created the universe (heavens) like we see expanding with big bang? What are you saying is the face of the deep, i.e. dark and void? Our planet Earth (earth)? God is working on the Earth. I've read it was formless and empty, but also seen an interpretation that it may have been covered with water vapor so we couldn't see it clearly -- the face of the deep. It follows that he has to separate the waters on day 2.

When you say hovering over the waters, I heard an interpretation that could be gravity and gravitational waves (?), but that is the most mysterious force. We can't get away from it. I have to go with the Holy Spirit created liquid water on the surface as that is what gives us life. I don't think there is another planet that we have found with liquid water, but that's a separate argument.

This is my interpretation of it (see attached file). You can skip the boring "something from nothing" at the beginning and start at the very last paragraph of page 3 that starts with "Of all the things created" if you like.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I do. We didn't even get to the redshift of Lemaitre and Hubble. Where did that energy come from?

I answered your questions, but none of you answer mine such as where did the big bang expand into if there is not space? How does energy start flowing if there is no time?

If you don't want to discuss, then that's fine with me. Most of the arguments being presented are not scientific, but tired atheist arguments trying to find contradictions and ad hominems. I've probably made a mistake posting a hypothesis in Creation and Evolution. Bye.

Lol. You claim you understood the problem, completely ignored it then, when Hans Blaster raised it in more detail in post #67, your response was "That's a good point" and then further demonstrated your complete lack of understanding. You can't even stick to your own (erroneous) claim that EMS was all energy. You now want it to be all energy except water (and presumably earth?).

This is typical of atheist denial and making up lies and excuses when they don't have an answer to basic scientific questions about the big bang . Instead of being insulted, I just laugh and think this type of ignorance is poor baby. Aww.

That is one of the most ironic posts you have made. As before, I suspect you don't understand why.

 

[muichimotsu]

You don't give me much to go by with any interpretation. What it sounds to me is you're just putting one argument after another just to contradict me and at the same time insult me and then I have to answer your question while you never answer mine.

You take me pointing out your implicit passive aggressive tone as an insult, that tells me you have latent insecurities and you can't admit when you're wrong, but double down on your preconceptions

Instead, why don't you present either what you think happened as described in the Bible or give me something with the big bang that answers what it expanded into? There is no clear explanation of what existed before the big bang. I thought it started spacetime at one time, but one has to have space first. I read Hawking and he said even quantum particles need space. As for the expansion, there is a violation of the laws of physics in how fast it occurred. I'm not even sure if dark energy is what accelerates the expansion.

What it expanded into? The universe. Are you even looking at what you post in what it reads as?

No one is claiming to know what happened before the Big Bang, it's speculation on its face and that's normal in a scientific investigation. But not all speculations are equal because there are constraints as to what constitutes a scientific explanation

So if there was space and time in some different form (super compressed by gravity or something to that effect?) how does your god factor in at all except by an appeal to ignorance?

Do you see what I'm getting at? Why don't you present what happened with your interpretation of the big bang. I've heard it explained so it follows what the Bible said (which I doubt you believe) as well a mish mosh of ideas. All you would have is the universe and a whole bunch of matter or quantum particles, i.e. nothing. I don't think you have any stars, planets, or any of that. Yet, I've heard the Earth formed a spheroid because that is the design these planets take.

Just becuase it fits your preconceptions doesn't make it so, I wasn't raised believing one way or the other, I took the evidence as it led in terms of the most practical explanation, which doesn't require a god at all

Quantum particles are not nothing, you're intentionally misrepresenting the word in some scientific manner while ignoring that true ex nihilo creation would be a physical impossibility per the science you keep quoting

No one said the stars, planets, etc, all immediately existed right after the Big Bang (more strawmen), that would take time to form via physical laws related to the more nebulous matter and energy

One has to know that ahead of time that it is a spherical shape and I find that they saw photos of Earth and are matching what happened to the end product. Where does the energy to form these heavenly bodies come from? If it is a spherical design, then wouldn't you think there was some kind of intelligence behind it? What about gravity? What about e=mc? How did all that happen? Or was it just by chance? That would be hard to swallow.

It's an oblate spheroid, first off, get it straight

The energy already existed, what formed the planets was more precisely described in terms of gravity, an accretion disc and the formation of a central star for a solar system that gravitates matter in that matter towards revolution and rotation, thus forming the spheroids

Let's not confuse teleology with teleonomy: an apparent design is not the same as a demonstrable design as regards a mind having to be behind it versus it merely appearing to be so

No one says it's by chance, more strawmanning based on your misunderstanding of science. It doesn't posit agency behind nature, that's your position that you haven't substantiated beyond circular appeal to a book that already accepts this agency exists and calls it "God". Try again

 

[Speedwell]

What it expanded into? The universe. Are you even looking at what you post in what it reads as?

That's a question frequently asked by creationists, and they think they've scored when they don't get an answer they understand

 

[Astrophile]

If we compare his creation so far with big bang, then it seems big bang wouldn't get off the ground. For example, where does water or water vapor come from? The Earth wouldn't be there and it would have to form. How could it end up spherical with liquid water? That's why I asked are there any other planets that we know has liquid water?

Oxygen was produced by helium-burning reactions in the first stars, which formed a few hundred million years after the Big Bang. After these stars exploded as supernovae or expelled their outer envelopes to form planetary nebulae the oxygen atoms became part of the interstellar medium, where they combined with hydrogen to form water molecules.

Since hydrogen and oxygen are the most abundant chemically reactive elements, water is probably the most abundant chemical compound in the universe, and it is bound to exist as liquid water in environments with the right temperature range. Even if none of the other planets in the solar system have liquid water, there is strong evidence that the satellites Europa, Ganymede and Enceladus have liquid water beneath the surface ice crust. Also, there are thousands of extrasolar planetary systems, and it defies probability that none of them have liquid water at their surfaces.