Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[SkyWriting]

Funny - we expel students at my university for doing that.

We pay for the privilege of doing research for a diploma.

 

[KWCrazy]

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

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.

 

[KWCrazy]

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.

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.

I expect people who make claims, to be able to support said claims, yes.

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.

No. I don't require "faith" to say that something is unknown.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Physicists, those that understand "natural law" the best do not seem to agree with you. What "natural law" is broken and how by a natural beginning to the universe?

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.

Sorry, but you shoot yourself in the foot with such a claim. Moses is a fictitious being.

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.

Nope, "I don't know" is never a valid excuse to invoke a deity.

 

[Kylie]

Exactly what spacing do you plan to use?
And when will you conduct this demonstration?

It's called Hawking radiation. Hawking radiation - Wikipedia

How does this create matter from nothing?
Can we watch your experiment?

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.

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.

Yeah, that doesn't say what you think it says. It's talking about how quantum mechanics is incompatible with a view of black holes based on relativity and how it means we need to change our ideas about how they work. Black holes definitely exist.

 

[Kylie]

Which arguments? This one?
Physicist Claims to Have Proven Mathematically That Black Holes Do Not Exist

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:

However, not everyone is on board with Mersini-Houghton’s conclusions. William Unruh, a theoretical physicist from the University of British Columbia, pointed out some fatal flaws in the paper's argument.

“The [paper] is nonsense,” Unruh said in an email to IFLS. “Attempts like this to show that black holes never form have a very long history, and this is only the latest. They all misunderstand Hawking radiation, and assume that matter behaves in ways that are completely implausible.”​

So, there's that.

Wait until the idea of no black holes becomes standard in science. Then I'll listen to you.

 

[Kylie]

I wish I was more up to speed:

No Black Holes Exist, Says Stephen Hawking—At Least Not Like We Think

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.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When you demand evidence for something for which you cannot provide evidence, that illustrates pure hypocrisy.

When you expect people to believe things which by defintion couldn't ever be supported by evidence, that illustrates pure irationality and gullibility.

Live up to your own expectations and we might take you seriously.

We actually do.
When people make claims, we ask for supporting evidence.

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

Whoops, I didn't comment on the article at all.
Or alter the font size.

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

We will be happy to watch you explain how black
holes create matter from joined pears not analiating
each other.

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

So how did this produce the real world from nothing?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's not just unknown, it's precluded by natural law. When something is precluded by natural law we call it "impossible"

When something is unknown, then it is unknown. You don't know in advance what is impossible and what isn't. You also speak as if physics, the science, is "done".

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.

You have a claim and nothing else.
You are free to demonstrate this mechanism though.

Believing that the universe created itself in violation of its own physical laws is foolishness.

1. I didn't claim that the universe created "itself", nore is it something I "believe".

2. consider the bolded part. You affirm yourself that the laws of physics are part of the universe. Why would the origin of the universe, break the laws....of the universe?? When the universe doesn't exist, then neither do the laws of said universe. Whatever event gave rise to the universe, it was an event that by definition wasn't subject to the laws of physics as we know them - because they didn't exist yet.

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.

It's of no particular use to try and use religious claims in a vain attempt to support religious claims. You just end up piling on more and more claims

Certainly, there are no theories of natural origination which can survive the facts detailed in a seventh grade science text.

Yes, we already established that the origins of the universe are unknown.

Ignorance will suffice.

If you want, I can just pretend to know like you do...
But I prefer being honest. I don't know what I don't know.

 

[Kylie]

Whoops, I didn't comment on the article at all.

Well, when you posted it, I thought you were posting it for a reason, and I thought that reason was that you thought it supported your argument.

Or alter the font size.

Well, something made the font size on the link larger. I've never seen the font size change by itself before, so I figured it was intentional.

 

[Kylie]

We will be happy to watch you explain how black
holes create matter from joined pears not analiating
each other.

Your complete lack of understanding about what I am trying to tell you does not make it wrong.

It merely means you are making yourself look silly.

 

[Kylie]

So how did this produce the real world from nothing?

This book explains it far better than I could.

https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/1451624468

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

Interestingly, although nothing can escape black holes, they can still lose mass and 'evaporate' (due to Hawking radiation).

Black Holes Appear 3D to Us, But Might Actually Be 2 dimensional

As is often the case, things are a little more complicated than that pop-sci article describes.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I wish I was more up to speed:

No Black Holes Exist, Says Stephen Hawking—At Least Not Like We Think

This might help explain: What Hawking meant when he said 'there are no black holes'.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Which arguments? This one?
Physicist Claims to Have Proven Mathematically That Black Holes Do Not Exist

It's a claim that very few other physicists take seriously (read the article itself for an example with expanation).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

Which they certainly do - check out the IMDB comments for it.

 

[SkyWriting]

It's a claim that very few other physicists take seriously (read the article itself for an example with expanation).

That's becasue Science is a popularity contest where
we vote on what is true and what isn't. All minority
views are wrong.