- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,281
- 8,501
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Funny - we expel students at my university for doing that.
When you demand evidence for something for which you cannot provide evidence, that illustrates pure hypocrisy. Live up to your own expectations and we might take you seriously.Instead of this off-topic nonsense, you could have either:
1. admitted that there is no evidence for creation or
2. just not replied at all
It's not just unknown, it's precluded by natural law.1. I said it was unknown. I didn't make any claims about it. Not sure why you think I should have to "prove" anything, by saying that it is unknown.
The "claim" of special creation came from God and was transcribed by Moses. Given the miracles that God performed through Moses, I'd say He demonstrated the claim very well.I expect people who make claims, to be able to support said claims, yes.
No. I don't require "faith" to say that something is unknown.
It's not just unknown, it's precluded by natural law.
When something is precluded by natural law we call it "impossible"
Believing in the impossible worked for Alice in Wonderland, but in this context it makes you look foolish. You don't have in natural law a mechanism for overcoming the impossible.
We do. Believing that a supernatural God created the universe is logical. Believing that the universe created itself in violation of its own physical laws is foolishness.
Perhaps that's why the Bible says those who reject God are foolish.
The "claim" of special creation came from God and was transcribed by Moses. Given the miracles that God performed through Moses, I'd say He demonstrated the claim very well.
Certainly, there are no theories of natural origination which can survive the facts detailed in a seventh grade science text.
Ignorance will suffice.
To be willfully ignorant of the laws of nature or to pretend that those laws somehow yielded of their own accord to allow for the creation of the universe without a Creator is, indeed, foolishness.
Exactly what spacing do you plan to use?
And when will you conduct this demonstration?
How does this create matter from nothing?
Can we watch your experiment?
P.S.
Stephen Hawking: 'There are no black holes' : Nature News & Comment
I'll guess you will not be submitting a journal paper on this topic.
Which arguments? This one?
Physicist Claims to Have Proven Mathematically That Black Holes Do Not Exist
I wish I was more up to speed:
No Black Holes Exist, Says Stephen Hawking—At Least Not Like We Think
When you demand evidence for something for which you cannot provide evidence, that illustrates pure hypocrisy.
Live up to your own expectations and we might take you seriously.
Wow, thanks for the big letters. They add so much credibility to your argument!Of course, you don't pay much attention to the actual article. It doesn't say what you think it says. Black holes are real.
Wow, you use a clickbait headline from IFLS as your evidence? Did you read the article itself? Maybe if you had read it, you'll have seen this bit:Wait until the idea of no black holes becomes standard in science. Then I'll listen to you.
Quantum mechanics tells us that there is no such thing as an actual vacuum, but there are always fluctuations. A pair of particles can spontaneously appear from these fluctuations (read above link), but usually these particles annihilate each other almost instantaneously. In our macroscopic world, these fluctuations cancel out and lead to the classical mechanics view of the world we see in our everyday life.But if one of the particles was destroyed before the pair could annihilate, then the surviving particle will not annihilate. This is how black holes emit Hawking radiation.
It's not just unknown, it's precluded by natural law. When something is precluded by natural law we call it "impossible"
Believing in the impossible worked for Alice in Wonderland, but in this context it makes you look foolish. You don't have in natural law a mechanism for overcoming the impossible.
We do. Believing that a supernatural God created the universe is logical.
Believing that the universe created itself in violation of its own physical laws is foolishness.
The "claim" of special creation came from God and was transcribed by Moses. Given the miracles that God performed through Moses, I'd say He demonstrated the claim very well.
Certainly, there are no theories of natural origination which can survive the facts detailed in a seventh grade science text.
Ignorance will suffice.
Whoops, I didn't comment on the article at all.
Or alter the font size.
We will be happy to watch you explain how black
holes create matter from joined pears not analiating
each other.
So how did this produce the real world from nothing?
Interestingly, although nothing can escape black holes, they can still lose mass and 'evaporate' (due to Hawking radiation).Since general relativity states that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, nothing inside the event horizon can ever cross the boundary and escape beyond it, including light.
As is often the case, things are a little more complicated than that pop-sci article describes.
This might help explain: What Hawking meant when he said 'there are no black holes'.I wish I was more up to speed:
No Black Holes Exist, Says Stephen Hawking—At Least Not Like We Think
It's a claim that very few other physicists take seriously (read the article itself for an example with expanation).Which arguments? This one?
Physicist Claims to Have Proven Mathematically That Black Holes Do Not Exist
Which they certainly do - check out the IMDB comments for it.Leaving aside for a moment the history of shoddy* science on the part of Creationists, a movie isn't quite what he's asking for in terms of evidence. In a movie, the presenters can just make claims and say things without challenge.
It's a claim that very few other physicists take seriously (read the article itself for an example with expanation).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?