Evidence of creation

[Subduction Zone]

Scoffs "the fact of physical laws"

Translation: No need to attack because I can't possibly defend.

Amended code one states that all formulas are present, except nothing created the universe. This is nihilist atheist, and yes I have met atheists like this. The problem with code 1 is this:

It runs, but as soon as it does, it returns a blank run. Here's what's happening. The library is up, so no problems there. I gave it a global variable called nothing. Nothing is set equal to nothing. The code begins to run, starting at the main () function. It hits an if statement asking if nothing is equal to something. Only nothing can never come from nothing, so it skips everything else. Geez, it's like you never watched Sound of Music.

"Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could..."

Or to quote something better.



Matter does not, and cannot come from nothing. It can rearrange itself, splitting into different stuff or merging, and some of that may look like nothing, but it is not in fact nothing.

You are ignoring the fact of physical laws.

Now, I have two other codes, one of which is a secular idea of creation, but one who accounts for a middle approach. But you're ignoring this to focus on a strawman. Which you can't defeat, since you, like 98% of the population, don't understand C++ code. So you tell me, "no need to attack since you lack evidence." Quick hint: all of these codes are applicable under real world logic. So, my code is wrong under one condition. The world you know of isn't real. If that's the case, yes, you are correct, no need to attack this.

I am not playing pointless silly games with computer codes. Either put up or shut up, you are asking others to do your homework for you.

 

[exchemist]

This just changes the focus of the problem to the next level from representational to motivational. You would think nothing would ever move from not moving.

On the contrary, the conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy is one of the most basic and pervasive features of physics. What do you think happens when a car starts to move. Chemical potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. The motion comes from static, stored energy.

 

[dfnj]

On the contrary, the conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy is one of the most basic and pervasive features of physics. What do you think happens when a car starts to move. Chemical potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. The motion comes from static, stored energy.

Everything you've said is just HOW nature behaves. I don't think HOW nature behaves explains WHY nature behaves at all. You would think nothingness would just be nothingness now and forever by the law of conservation of energy. Why nature behaves at all cannot be explained by how it behaves. That's a weird use of language. "That's just bla, bla, bla" is not an explanation of what motivates electrons to move at all or why atomic shells exist. Why the laws of physics exist at all is a much deeper question that what the laws actually are. Nature dictates to us how she behaves.

What is the IT the determines which quantum state gets realized?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Everything you've said is just HOW nature behaves. I don't think HOW nature behaves explains WHY nature behaves at all. You would think nothingness would just be nothingness now and forever by the law of conservation of energy. Why nature behaves at all cannot be explained by how it behaves. That's a weird use of language. "That's just bla, bla, bla" is not an explanation of what motivates electrons to move at all or why atomic shells exist. Why the laws of physics exist at all is a much deeper question that what the laws actually are. Nature dictates to us how she behaves.

What is the IT the determines which quantum state gets realized?

It appears that you think that there is some goal to nature, shown by your emphasis of the word "why". If you want to claim there is some purpose the burden of proof is upon you. Knowing "how" is much better than focusing on a possibly nonexistent "why".

 

[exchemist]

Scoffs "the fact of physical laws"

Translation: No need to attack because I can't possibly defend.

Amended code one states that all formulas are present, except nothing created the universe. This is nihilist atheist, and yes I have met atheists like this. The problem with code 1 is this:

It runs, but as soon as it does, it returns a blank run. Here's what's happening. The library is up, so no problems there. I gave it a global variable called nothing. Nothing is set equal to nothing. The code begins to run, starting at the main () function. It hits an if statement asking if nothing is equal to something. Only nothing can never come from nothing, so it skips everything else. Geez, it's like you never watched Sound of Music.

"Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could..."

Or to quote something better.



Matter does not, and cannot come from nothing. It can rearrange itself, splitting into different stuff or merging, and some of that may look like nothing, but it is not in fact nothing.

You are ignoring the fact of physical laws.

Now, I have two other codes, one of which is a secular idea of creation, but one who accounts for a middle approach. But you're ignoring this to focus on a strawman. Which you can't defeat, since you, like 98% of the population, don't understand C++ code. So you tell me, "no need to attack since you lack evidence." Quick hint: all of these codes are applicable under real world logic. So, my code is wrong under one condition. The world you know of isn't real. If that's the case, yes, you are correct, no need to attack this.

You have forgotten to giv

Everything you've said is just HOW nature behaves. I don't think HOW nature behaves explains WHY nature behaves at all. You would think nothingness would just be nothingness now and forever by the law of conservation of energy. Why nature behaves at all cannot be explained by how it behaves. That's a weird use of language. "That's just bla, bla, bla" is not an explanation of what motivates electrons to move at all or why atomic shells exist. Why the laws of physics exist at all is a much deeper question that what the laws actually are. Nature dictates to us how she behaves.

What is the IT the determines which quantum state gets realized?

I don't disagree about your "Why" point. The job of science is to construct predictive models of the physical world. It stops there.

If you want to go on asking "Why" questions, you eventually run out of road with science, because at some point it will say to you: "Sorry, that's as far as the observational evidence can take us." We don't know why the so-called "laws" of nature are as they are. They are just observed to be the way the physical world seems to operate. (Though some of the "laws" can be derived from deeper ones, e.g. 1st Law of Thermodynamics comes from Noether's Theorem, and things like that.)

I'm not taking issue with your position on the "Why" question. Science does not address issues of meaning or purpose in the physical world. I just want to set straight any misunderstandings about science.

 

[dfnj]

It appears that you think that there is some goal to nature, shown by your emphasis of the word "why". If you want to claim there is some purpose the burden of proof is upon you. Knowing "how" is much better than focusing on a possibly nonexistent "why".

I did not mean WHY in terms of goal. I meant WHY in terms of energy at all as opposed to nothing. We could have perfect mathematical descriptions on HOW electrons behave but the more interesting question is WHY electrons move at all. The laws of physics exist. Nature behaves. It just seems to me nothingness makes more sense. Anything above nothingness seems to me to be a violation of conservation principles. Any movement at all makes me think there has to be something kicking it along. Electrons are just weird. Electrons weigh 9.10938356 × 10-31 kilograms and travel 2,200 kilometers per second. You would think at some point they would all just run out of gas.

 

[exchemist]

I did not mean WHY in terms of goal. I meant WHY in terms of energy at all as opposed to nothing. We could have perfect mathematical descriptions on HOW electrons behave but the more interesting question is WHY electrons move at all. The laws of physics exist. Nature behaves. It just seems to me nothingness makes more sense. Anything above nothingness seems to me to be a violation of conservation principles. Any movement at all makes me think there has to be something kicking it along. Electrons are just weird. Electrons weigh 9.10938356 × 10-31 kilograms and travel 2,200 kilometers per second. You would think at some point they would all just run out of gas.

No you wouldn't. Do the planets "run out of gas" and stop orbiting the sun?

 

[`mud]

The speed of electrons is indeterminate.
On a copper wire, or in the wire, or in space, or around hydrogen.
They bounce around a lot don't they ??
And colliding with photons....
I don't really know...just guessing.

 

[exchemist]

The speed of electrons is indeterminate.
On a copper wire, or in the wire, or in space, or around hydrogen.
They bounce around a lot don't they ??
And colliding with photons....
I don't really know...just guessing.

This is interesting. There is a discussion about it here, in the context of an electron in an atomic orbital: How fast do electrons travel in an atomic orbital?

So although you are right about the speed being indeterminate, one can estimate the order of magnitude. As I recall, this is important because if you want to explain why gold is yellow, it depends on realising that for gold the speed of the electrons is fast enough for relativity effects to become significant, whereas for lighter elements this is not the case. I think it is the 6s orbital that is contracted by the increased relativistic mass of the electron more than the 5d, reducing the absorption frequency for the 5d->6s transition so that it falls in the blue rather than the UV and thus making the metal look yellow.

This is a long way off-topic, except that we are discussing the intricate wonders of creation.....

 

[`mud]

Yahhhhh.....you got that right...
NuffStuff

 

[nPeace]

What evidence is there that the universe, the solar system, or life was created?

0:28 - Whether they were made by beaks or paws, these homes have a universal purpose - to keep their owners safe from a dangerous world, as they give birth and make a family.
0:39 - It makes it a perfect bear hole. It's secure. It dry...
0:45 - ...the most prolific of builders. A bird's nest is no simple matter. Each [nest] must match its maker, large or small; whether from coarse red clay, or the finest silken threads.
The nest
From nature's most mundane materials, birds weave wonders.
Delicate circles of grass and twigs... elaborately woven baskets of vines... imposing castles of mud, and wood...
These are works of art, so skillful, so beautiful, it's hard to believe they were fashioned by beaks, instead hands.
2:15 - Every one of these fantastic creations tells a story.

5:30 - 6:30 Wow! Amazing!

The only evidence I know of thus far, for any complex, purposeful, well designed, construction, is creation.
The more complex the design - the more intelligent the maker, it would seem.
From what evidence there is, some form of intelligence exists in the designer.

I don't see how evolution can answer the question of how each creature learned its building skill. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that the universe wasn't designed by someone, so I don't see why I should not believe that it was. All the evidence points to creation. What I have given here is just about 1% of the evidence which convinces me.

Of course, every house is built by someone, and God is really the one who built everything. Hebrews 3:4

 

[dfnj]

No you wouldn't. Do the planets "run out of gas" and stop orbiting the sun?

It must be a perpetual motion machine.

 

[exchemist]

It must be a perpetual motion machine.

If you want to call the motion of the planets a "perpetual motion machine" then yes, though this is not generally how the term is used.

 

[Etritonakin]

From our perspective, we see that which is unintentional developing into that which is capable of intent -that which is "natural" developing into that which is able to decide the course of nature by decision.

Some believe this could not apply to "God", but the idea is not against biblical scripture -and scripture almost states as much -without much focus on the very "beginning" (backward in sequence) -which, it is stated, God WAS.

It is actually more logical (at least to me) -and would be perfectly natural -that "everything" became creative in a complex way first -rather than simply initially being of a nature to mass-produce elements, planets, stars, life, creative beings, etc.

(Steps toward our own creativity happened over time -and even in other species along the line [whether creativity was involved at any point or not]. Mapping each necessary step would be quite revealing. It is logical [at least to me] that each of those steps happened to "everything" or "one" first -enabling the creativity which led to our own)

 

[exchemist]

0:28 - Whether they were made by beaks or paws, these homes have a universal purpose - to keep their owners safe from a dangerous world, as they give birth and make a family.
0:39 - It makes it a perfect bear hole. It's secure. It dry...
0:45 - ...the most prolific of builders. A bird's nest is no simple matter. Each [nest] must match its maker, large or small; whether from coarse red clay, or the finest silken threads.
The nest
From nature's most mundane materials, birds weave wonders.
Delicate circles of grass and twigs... elaborately woven baskets of vines... imposing castles of mud, and wood...
These are works of art, so skillful, so beautiful, it's hard to believe they were fashioned by beaks, instead hands.
2:15 - Every one of these fantastic creations tells a story.

5:30 - 6:30 Wow! Amazing!

The only evidence I know of thus far, for any complex, purposeful, well designed, construction, is creation.
The more complex the design - the more intelligent the maker, it would seem.
From what evidence there is, some form of intelligence exists in the designer.

I don't see how evolution can answer the question of how each creature learned its building skill. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that the universe wasn't designed by someone, so I don't see why I should not believe that it was. All the evidence points to creation. What I have given here is just about 1% of the evidence which convinces me.

Of course, every house is built by someone, and God is really the one who built everything. Hebrews 3:4

This statement : " I don't see how evolution can answer the question of how each creature learned its building skill. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that the universe wasn't designed by someone, so I don't see why I should not believe that it was." seems to call for a response.

You are free to believe what you like, so long as you don't call it science.

So far as science is concerned, a hypothesis must be shown to have testable, predictive value or it will be discarded (Ockham's Razor). A hypothesis of design by a creator is not supported by any positive evidence. As you yourself admit, it relies on inexpert individuals not being able, personally, to see how something can have otherwise have come about. This is known as the "Argument from Personal Incredulity". Furthermore, the hypothesis of a designer has no testable predictive power: it can't predict what you should find, in observations of nature, to support its validity. Accordingly, it is not a scientific idea.

I only mention this in case someone might think that "intelligent design" is science, as some people pretend.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What evidence is there that the universe, the solar system, or life was created?

The four extremely well-balanced fundamental forces affecting everything in them......

The integral complexity in organisms revealing highly specified, functional information systems forming elegant design......

The rejuvenating cycles on the Earth, such as the water; nitrogen; etc. The mechanisms which recycle sewage and waste, helping life to flourish.

Design is everywhere, even when the systems are dangerous.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The four extremely well-balanced fundamental forces affecting everything in them......

The integral complexity in organisms revealing highly specified, functional information systems forming elegant design......

The rejuvenating cycles on the Earth, such as the water; nitrogen; etc. The mechanisms which recycle sewage and waste, helping life to flourish.

Design is everywhere, even when the systems are dangerous.

Hand waving is not evidence.

 

[Milton Platt]

What evidence is there that anything ever started all by itself for no reason?

The current universe?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The current universe?

Though rather hypothetical there may have been a "before the Big Bang". At best we can say "our current universe" to refer to after the singularity.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

The current universe?

The fact that there is a universe does not prove it started all by itself for no reason any more than the fact that you own a computer proves it just popped into existence one day for no reason. And since the universe is a million tines more complex than a computer, there is actually a better chance that the computer just came into existence by itself than that the universe came into existence by itself.

















t