Newbie to scientific creationsim (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

loco79 -> Newbie to scientific creationsim (8/28/2008 2:10:30 PM)

I have been studying a little bit of creationism and really cant wrap my head around one the. "The begining"

What I mean is that I know that there are lots of topics on animals and what not, I am more concerned with space. From what I do know is that no matter how you spell creation, evolution and so on, there is always a single point of origin. So my question is: how does the smallest thing in the galaxy(universe or whatever, I am not an astonomer) come to creation. I know that once you create what ever the smallest thing was or is, you can have a million different ideas as to how we have come about today. So if in the begining there was this single origin of life (from a scientific standpoint) then what created it? how could something be created or evolve from pure nothingness. I mean absolute nothing and not black space or matter or whatever word is used for microscopic sized things.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Newbie to scientific creationsim (8/28/2008 2:41:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: loco79
how could something be created or evolve from pure nothingness.


It's hard to imagine that there ever existed nothing, because nothing itself is something. Even if there existed nothing but space at one point, space itself is something. From this, we can deduce that something was always there and it was this something that caused the universe.



EcclesFruitcake -> RE: Newbie to scientific creationsim (8/28/2008 3:54:12 PM)

I agree with Betta:

Nothing never existed ;)



Jhud -> RE: Newbie to scientific creationsim (8/28/2008 3:59:45 PM)

In all fairness to materialists, I don't know that any of them believe living organisms came from nothing, but rather that they developed as the result of some unknown natural processes capable of producing life from non-living manner. And it's not an evolutionary process, per se, depedning on who you ask.

Now the universe itself? That's another thing....



loco79 -> RE: Newbie to scientific creationsim (8/28/2008 5:16:30 PM)

quote:

Even if there existed nothing but space at one point, space itself is something. From this, we can deduce that something was always there and it was this something that caused the universe.


This is exaclty what I dont understand. something had to create space, and if it is nothing, and has no characteristics, then how all of a sudden does it create something. It has to have some sort of characteristics to create something.



DanJames -> RE: Newbie to scientific creationsim (8/29/2008 12:39:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: loco79

quote:

Even if there existed nothing but space at one point, space itself is something. From this, we can deduce that something was always there and it was this something that caused the universe.


This is exaclty what I dont understand. something had to create space, and if it is nothing, and has no characteristics, then how all of a sudden does it create something. It has to have some sort of characteristics to create something.

A nut job one time explained to me that the total energy of the universe is zero. Matter is positive energy and space is negative. That's why when you stretch space, virtual particles appear. The more space you have, the more energy you should have. So that the total energy of the universe is zero. I have no idea what that means, though.



essentialsaltes -> RE: Newbie to scientific creationsim (8/29/2008 2:20:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames

A nut job one time explained to me that the total energy of the universe is zero.


That hasn't been established, but it's definitely a possibility. Normal matter has a positive energy content, while the potential energy bound up in gravity and other forces is negative*.
If the total energy of the universe is zero, then the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says that you can 'borrow' zero energy for as along as you like. This is hardly a widely accepted idea for how you can get a universe for free, but it's slightly better developed that the rantings of a nut job. A little more discussion can be found here.


*(a comet very distant from the sun would have 0 potential energy; as it fell toward the sun it would gain kinetic energy and (since the total has to stay constant), it loses potential energy, i.e. the potential energy gets more negative the closer the comet is to the sun).



drmark -> RE: Newbie to scientific creationsim (8/29/2008 11:19:33 PM)

quote:

This is exaclty what I dont understand. something had to create space, and if it is nothing, and has no characteristics, then how all of a sudden does it create something. It has to have some sort of characteristics to create something.
Are you pondering the universal law of causality as a logical proof of God's existence? Perhaps this article will be helpful for your understanding. I will quote the most relevant section:

quote:

In fact, from these valid principles of causality and composition, we can logically deduce the existence of a unique, noncomposite, self-caused, universal cause G. This entity, whose existence we prove, is God (by logical definition). This God is not some abstract figment of our imagination but the actual, ultimate cause of all existing phenomena and entities, the origin of all being.



upNORTder -> RE: Newbie to scientific creationsim (9/14/2008 12:25:08 PM)

quote:

*(a comet very distant from the sun would have 0 potential energy; as it fell toward the sun it would gain kinetic energy and (since the total has to stay constant), it loses potential energy, i.e. the potential energy gets more negative the closer the comet is to the sun).



Such a comet would be moving and will keep moving until something interacts with it. When it is at it's highest orbital point it has as much potental energy as it does when it is closest to the sun.

Energy cannot be destroyed, it just changes form.



essentialsaltes -> RE: Newbie to scientific creationsim (9/14/2008 12:48:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: upNORTder

quote:

*(a comet very distant from the sun would have 0 potential energy; as it fell toward the sun it would gain kinetic energy and (since the total has to stay constant), it loses potential energy, i.e. the potential energy gets more negative the closer the comet is to the sun).



Such a comet would be moving and will keep moving until something interacts with it. When it is at it's highest orbital point it has as much potental energy as it does when it is closest to the sun.

Energy cannot be destroyed, it just changes form.


Correct, it changes form, from potential into kinetic. The potential energy is not the same at the furthest and closest points.



KaseyTom -> RE: Newbie to scientific creationsim (9/14/2008 4:05:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: loco79

quote:

Even if there existed nothing but space at one point, space itself is something. From this, we can deduce that something was always there and it was this something that caused the universe.


This is exaclty what I dont understand. something had to create space, and if it is nothing, and has no characteristics, then how all of a sudden does it create something. It has to have some sort of characteristics to create something.


Physicists can mathematically describe the state of the universe a point where T(ime) =0.000000000001 sec.
Soon they will be able to describe T=0.1x20 or T=0.1x1000 or T=0.1x1000000.

The big problem infinite gap between that and T=0



ask_questions -> RE: Newbie to scientific creationsim (9/29/2008 5:22:28 AM)

"Scientific Creationism" is an oxymoron.

Matter cannot be created nor destroyed.



DanJames -> RE: Newbie to scientific creationsim (9/29/2008 8:51:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ask_questions

"Scientific Creationism" is an oxymoron.

Matter cannot be created nor destroyed.

Hey, ask_questions, welcome to the thread! You'll find that there are plenty of sources from all ranges of the spectrum of origins beliefs who are more than willing to have a conversation with you. However, we're going to need more to work with than '"Scientific Creationism" is an oxymoron'. You may find, if you're willing and capable of intelligent conversation, that there is more to the Creation theory than you know.



Jon_St3wart -> RE: Newbie to scientific creationsim (10/8/2008 2:54:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KaseyTom
Physicists can mathematically describe the state of the universe a point where T(ime) =0.000000000001 sec.
Soon they will be able to describe T=0.1x20 or T=0.1x1000 or T=0.1x1000000.

The big problem infinite gap between that and T=0


I don't know exactly where you got that information, but we can mathematically describe the universe to the point at T=10^-43 seconds after the big bang (the planck epoch), which is not 0.000000000001 sec.

The problem with the initial state of the Big Bang is that our current physical laws mathematically break down, so we are unable to describe it properly. Models of the Big Bang do not require that t=0.



Jon_St3wart -> RE: Newbie to scientific creationsim (10/8/2008 2:58:37 PM)

quote:

I have no idea what that means, though.


That would be Newton's First Law of Thermodynamics. Because our universe is a closed-system there is no influx of energy coming into the system nor is the energy in our closed-system being transferred to another system. That would mean that the net gain and loss of energy in our system is zero.



KaseyTom -> RE: Newbie to scientific creationsim (10/8/2008 3:54:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames

quote:

ORIGINAL: ask_questions

"Scientific Creationism" is an oxymoron.

Matter cannot be created nor destroyed.

You may find, if you're willing and capable of intelligent conversation, that there is more to the Creation theory than you know.


Actually, there isn't.
Scientific Creationism is in fact an oxymoron. Creationism is anti-science. It rejects the scientific method as invalid. I accepts supernatural acts (otherwise known as magic) as valid scientific phenomena.



DanJames -> RE: Newbie to scientific creationsim (10/9/2008 1:39:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KaseyTom

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames

quote:

ORIGINAL: ask_questions

"Scientific Creationism" is an oxymoron.

Matter cannot be created nor destroyed.

You may find, if you're willing and capable of intelligent conversation, that there is more to the Creation theory than you know.


Actually, there isn't.
Scientific Creationism is in fact an oxymoron. Creationism is anti-science. It rejects the scientific method as invalid. I accepts supernatural acts (otherwise known as magic) as valid scientific phenomena.

One phenomenon that has not yet been explained is how someone who is so capable of critical thinking still insists upon throwing around rants where real thought could be. Scientific Creationism is an oxymoron! Creationism is anti-science! Rejection of the scientific method! Denial of facts! If you're interested in clarity of the subject, try to listen.



Page: [1]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI