Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism

[Liability]

The Laws of Thermodynamics exist in THIS Universe as WE know it. But those laws appear NOT to have obtained in the state that pre-existed the Big Pop.

indeed you are an idiot and you talk nonsense as unconscious
* * * *

Without appreciating it, what you are doing is projecting.

Are you vain? Certainly.

Are you somewhat educated? Probably.

Do you firmly believe the stuff you spew? Probably.

Does anything you've said demonstrate that your view is ultimately "correct?" Absolutely not.

You are the master of gibberish and you will never be self-aware enough to see it.

 

[UltraModernist]

You are the master of gibberish

you too

 

[Liability]

You are the master of gibberish

you too

Brilliant come-back.

When you have nothing of value to say (which is, evidently, all the time) you should always be that concise.

 

[edthecynic]

* * * *

A perfect example of the first quote in my sig.

^ A perfect example of your endless supply of dishonesty and baseless self-congratulation.

Again, time is related to motion. Energy does not "COME from," it IS. There is a singular unstable moment when all the Energy of the universe is neither expanding or contracting. For that moment time does not exist but Energy still does.
Think of tossing a ball straight up in the air, there is one singular unstable moment when the ball is neither rising nor falling. So too when all the Energy in the universe has been compressed into one point by a supermassive black hole and before this same Energy begins expanding in the BB there is a singularity where the Energy of the universe is not expanding or contracting, a moment where time does not exist. Only time begins at the BB. Energy exists before, during, and after the BB.

Again, your make-believe "answer" actually fails to answer much of anything. Energy is composed of ---------. What? Go ahead. Fill in the blank.

Where did THAT stuff come from? How did it come into existence?

What you persist in claiming is that something exists which was never "created." How did THAT happen, exactly? Your answer (which just hangs there and loops in on itself, but otherwise fails to answer a single thing) is something that boils down to: "it is and always was 'there.'" * Uh huh. But you seem genuinely unable to comprehend that it DOES exist and -- energy cannot be created. So, it exists without having been created. And in no other thing in life would you be silly enough to maintain that something can exist that did not at some point come into existence from something.

_______________
* Sounds a little bit like, "I AM that I AM."

Energy is Energy. The proven FLoT has established that Energy cannot be created, not me. If you can't accept that, simply set up a repeatable experiment to disprove the FLoT. Until then, you are stuck with the proven fact that Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Everything that exists is Energy in some form.

You sound like you want to turn Energy into a God which you seem to have no trouble believing always existed. The problem with that is God is not a thing and therefore to believe God created the universe you must believe, "No thing, created everything, from nothing" which is impossible.

In my opinion nothing occurs contrary to nature except the impossible, and that never occurs.
Galileo Galilei

 

[JBeukema]

What you persist in claiming is that something exists which was never "created."

Your assumption that nothing can exist without being created is fallacious, ignorant, and just plain stupid

 

[Liability]

* * * *

Energy is Energy. The proven FLoT has established that Energy cannot be created, not me. If you can't accept that, simply set up a repeatable experiment to disprove the FLoT. Until then, you are stuck with the proven fact that Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Everything that exists is Energy in some form.

You sound like you want to turn Energy into a God which you seem to have no trouble believing always existed. The problem with that is God is not a thing and therefore to believe God created the universe you must believe, "No thing, created everything, from nothing" which is impossible.

In my opinion nothing occurs contrary to nature except the impossible, and that never occurs.
Galileo Galilei

Thanks for the boring use of tautology. Yes. Energy IS, in fact, energy. But, we all already know that.

And while it may be true that the unvierse, as it exists since the Big Bang, adheres to the FLoT, what you cannot demonstrate is that the "Law" applied prior to the big bang.

If energy can never have been "created," then you are still maintaining that "there is a thing that can (and does) exist without having been created." Maybe. Maybe not. But if that's true, then you are denying one of the laws of science. For OTHER THAN that "exception" you rely upon (without being able to explain), you would probably be one of the first to INSIST that nothing exists that was not first created in some manner.

Since I am not a physicist (and cannot play one even on TV), I am bound to never fully grasp all of this. I get the impression that your understanding of these "physics" issues is genuinely deeper than mine; but at the same time I cannot help but laugh that you imagine that your understanding provides actual answers to the fundamental questions.

Real physicists tend to be quite able and willing to admit that in many crucial respects, the best scientific answer we can offer to date remains: "we don't know."

Here's a lovely parting gift. Actually, that's not a snide line. I am guessing you'll enjoy this scientific abstract. http://energy.nobelprize.org/abstracts/linde_050619.pdf

 

[Liability]

What you persist in claiming is that something exists which was never "created."

Your assumption that nothing can exist without being created is fallacious, ignorant, and just plain stupid

So you stupidly persist in ignorantly claiming.

It is worth noting that my assertion is not an assumption at all.

What I have said, repeatedly, is that in the universe, since the Big Bang, with the EXCEPTION of energy, nothing exists without being created.

What I have left open (since, unlike you, I do not pretend to have or know the "answers") is the question of whether -- PRIOR to or at the first instant of the Big Bang -- it is possible that energy got created. In other words, that which would violate the FLoT in the post creation universe might not violate ANY law of physics for the state of the pre-creation universe.

You go on pretending that you know the answers, though.

 

[edthecynic]

it is ONE of the invariable LAWS of science that NOTHING can exist prior to itself?

If energy can never have been "created," then you are still maintaining that "there is a thing that can (and does) exist without having been created." Maybe. Maybe not. But if that's true, then you are denying one of the laws of science. For OTHER THAN that "exception" you rely upon (without being able to explain), you would probably be one of the first to INSIST that nothing exists that was not first created in some manner.

Your problem is your "law of science" is not a law of science but an unproven assumption of Thomas Aquinas. I am simply adhering to an actual Law of science, the FLoT.

 

[edthecynic]

Since I am not a physicist (and cannot play one even on TV), I am bound to never fully grasp all of this. I get the impression that your understanding of these "physics" issues is genuinely deeper than mine; but at the same time I cannot help but laugh that you imagine that your understanding provides actual answers to the fundamental questions.

Real physicists tend to be quite able and willing to admit that in many crucial respects, the best scientific answer we can offer to date remains: "we don't know."

Here's a lovely parting gift. Actually, that's not a snide line. I am guessing you'll enjoy this scientific abstract. http://energy.nobelprize.org/abstracts/linde_050619.pdf

The problem with your abstract that the universe is losing energy because it cools as it expands is, taken to its logical conclusion, at some point all the energy of the universe will be lost and everything in the universe will come to a permanent halt. This violates the Third Law of Thermodynamics which says there is no temperature at which all motion stops permanently (Absolute Zero).

 

[Liability]

Since I am not a physicist (and cannot play one even on TV), I am bound to never fully grasp all of this. I get the impression that your understanding of these "physics" issues is genuinely deeper than mine; but at the same time I cannot help but laugh that you imagine that your understanding provides actual answers to the fundamental questions.

Real physicists tend to be quite able and willing to admit that in many crucial respects, the best scientific answer we can offer to date remains: "we don't know."

Here's a lovely parting gift. Actually, that's not a snide line. I am guessing you'll enjoy this scientific abstract. http://energy.nobelprize.org/abstracts/linde_050619.pdf

The problem with your abstract that the universe is losing energy because it cools as it expands is, taken to its logical conclusion, at some point all the energy of the universe will be lost and everything in the universe will come to a permanent halt. This violates the Third Law of Thermodynamics which says there is no temperature at which all motion stops permanently (Absolute Zero).

(A) that's not "my" abstract.
(B) you misread it in any event.
(C) Energy in the expanding and cooling universe would cetainly NOT be "lost." It would change form, perhaps. But energy could not be lost.

 

[UltraModernist]

What you persist in claiming is that something exists which was never "created."

Your assumption that nothing can exist without being created is fallacious, ignorant, and just plain stupid

almost everything exist without being created (except of such things like products of our hands, mounds of beavers etc.), let's consider example of a tree

if you see a tree, it wasn't created it arose from a seed,
this seed arose from some earlier tree... earlier seeds from earlier and simpler plants,
simple plants from metazoons, metazoons from protocells, protocells from organic compounds, organic compounds from inorganic compounds and so on

As I have written

did our planetary system arise naturally without any gods ? yes
did our galaxy arise naturally without any gods ? yes
so the same we can say about the universe - because it is like galaxy of galaxies, and Galaxy is system of planetary systems

 

[Liability]

it is ONE of the invariable LAWS of science that NOTHING can exist prior to itself?

If energy can never have been "created," then you are still maintaining that "there is a thing that can (and does) exist without having been created." Maybe. Maybe not. But if that's true, then you are denying one of the laws of science. For OTHER THAN that "exception" you rely upon (without being able to explain), you would probably be one of the first to INSIST that nothing exists that was not first created in some manner.

Your problem is your "law of science" is not a law of science but an unproven assumption of Thomas Aquinas. I am simply adhering to an actual Law of science, the FLoT.

Oh come off it. It is an established law of science that nothing can exist prior to itself. It can be re-phrased in a variety of ways. But it essentially is the FLoT. In fact, you can point to NO reputable scientist who would say that anything can exist without being created (excepting the essential paricles of matter/energy) and possibly excluding the state that existed at or prior to the so-called Big Bang.

 

[edthecynic]

Since I am not a physicist (and cannot play one even on TV), I am bound to never fully grasp all of this. I get the impression that your understanding of these "physics" issues is genuinely deeper than mine; but at the same time I cannot help but laugh that you imagine that your understanding provides actual answers to the fundamental questions.

Real physicists tend to be quite able and willing to admit that in many crucial respects, the best scientific answer we can offer to date remains: "we don't know."

Here's a lovely parting gift. Actually, that's not a snide line. I am guessing you'll enjoy this scientific abstract. http://energy.nobelprize.org/abstracts/linde_050619.pdf

The problem with your abstract that the universe is losing energy because it cools as it expands is, taken to its logical conclusion, at some point all the energy of the universe will be lost and everything in the universe will come to a permanent halt. This violates the Third Law of Thermodynamics which says there is no temperature at which all motion stops permanently (Absolute Zero).

(A) that's not "my" abstract.
(B) you misread it in any event.
(C) Energy in the expanding and cooling universe would cetainly NOT be "lost." It would change form, perhaps. But energy could not be lost.

From your link: "Before trying to
answer these questions, let us remember that energy of matter in the universe is not conserved: dE = −pdV . Volume V of an expanding universe grows, so its energy decreases if pressure p is positive."

(A) Picky, picky, picky, it was "your" link.
(B) You are the one misreading it.
(C) And if Energy is not lost then it is not decreasing, contradicting your very linked abstract.
Part of the universe is expanding away from the BB and another part is contracting into the supermassive black hole, so energy is conserved.

 

[edthecynic]

it is ONE of the invariable LAWS of science that NOTHING can exist prior to itself?

If energy can never have been "created," then you are still maintaining that "there is a thing that can (and does) exist without having been created." Maybe. Maybe not. But if that's true, then you are denying one of the laws of science. For OTHER THAN that "exception" you rely upon (without being able to explain), you would probably be one of the first to INSIST that nothing exists that was not first created in some manner.

Your problem is your "law of science" is not a law of science but an unproven assumption of Thomas Aquinas. I am simply adhering to an actual Law of science, the FLoT.

Oh come off it. It is an established law of science that nothing can exist prior to itself. It can be re-phrased in a variety of ways. But it essentially is the FLoT. In fact, you can point to NO reputable scientist who would say that anything can exist without being created (excepting the essential paricles of matter/energy) and possibly excluding the state that existed at or prior to the so-called Big Bang.

It is not the FLoT or you would be able to use the actual words of the FLoT to make your case.

 

[Liability]

What you persist in claiming is that something exists which was never "created."

Your assumption that nothing can exist without being created is fallacious, ignorant, and just plain stupid

everything exist without being created (except of products of our hands), let's consider example of a tree

if you see a tree, it wasn't created it arose from a seed,
this seed arose from some earlier tree... earlier seeds from earlier and simpler plants,
simple plants from metazoons, metazoons from protocells, protocells from organic compounds, organic compounds from inorganic compounds etc.

As I have written

did our planetary system arise naturally without any gods ? yes
did our galaxy arise naturally without any gods ? yes
so the same we can say about the universe - because it is like galaxy of galaxies, and Galaxy is system of planetary systems

You type with your toes and think with your ass.

You just established that everything that is is created, with the exception of the original particles of matter themselves for which the FLoT appears not to exist in your overly simplistic understanding of things. The reality is that nothing (with that initial set of possible exceptions) exists without being created.

• The tree gets created from the seed (and a lot of other things). The seed got created by the prior tree and a lot of other things.
• The material that went into that whole chain of flora came from earlier matter.
• We all came from (Carl Sagan called it) "Star stuff."
• Those stars came from the cosmological evolution and lots of particles that collectively came from (we believe) the Big Bang.

And it came from absolutely nothing at all according to you guys. Or, from nothing because it "always was and always shall be."

And you STILL think you have something that is explanatory.

 

[Liability]

Your problem is your "law of science" is not a law of science but an unproven assumption of Thomas Aquinas. I am simply adhering to an actual Law of science, the FLoT.

Oh come off it. It is an established law of science that nothing can exist prior to itself. It can be re-phrased in a variety of ways. But it essentially is the FLoT. In fact, you can point to NO reputable scientist who would say that anything can exist without being created (excepting the essential paricles of matter/energy) and possibly excluding the state that existed at or prior to the so-called Big Bang.

It is not the FLoT or you would be able to use the actual words of the FLoT to make your case.

It is FLoT and the odd thing here is that you KNOW it is FLoT.

The law of conservation of mass/matter, also known as principle of mass/matter conservation is that the mass of a closed system will remain constant over time, regardless of the processes acting inside the system. A similar statement is that mass cannot be created/destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space, and changed into different types of particles. This implies that for any chemical process in a closed system, the mass of the reactants must equal the mass of the products. This is also the main idea of the first law of thermodynamics.

Conservation of mass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Liability]

The problem with your abstract that the universe is losing energy because it cools as it expands is, taken to its logical conclusion, at some point all the energy of the universe will be lost and everything in the universe will come to a permanent halt. This violates the Third Law of Thermodynamics which says there is no temperature at which all motion stops permanently (Absolute Zero).

(A) that's not "my" abstract.
(B) you misread it in any event.
(C) Energy in the expanding and cooling universe would cetainly NOT be "lost." It would change form, perhaps. But energy could not be lost.

From your link: "Before trying to
answer these questions, let us remember that energy of matter in the universe is not conserved: dE = −pdV . Volume V of an expanding universe grows, so its energy decreases if pressure p is positive."

(A) Picky, picky, picky, it was "your" link.
(B) You are the one misreading it.
(C) And if Energy is not lost then it is not decreasing, contradicting your very linked abstract.
Part of the universe is expanding away from the BB and another part is contracting into the supermassive black hole, so energy is conserved.

You have misread it and still do. The energy of matter is not lost and in a closed system cannot be lost.

It can change form, however.

 

[UltraModernist]

nothing exists without being created

this sentence is abnormal

And you STILL think you have something that is explanatory.

you haven't any knowledge and you came on the forum - go learn anything, if you are able to do it in this abnormal state

 

[edthecynic]

(A) that's not "my" abstract.
(B) you misread it in any event.
(C) Energy in the expanding and cooling universe would cetainly NOT be "lost." It would change form, perhaps. But energy could not be lost.

From your link: "Before trying to
answer these questions, let us remember that energy of matter in the universe is not conserved: dE = −pdV . Volume V of an expanding universe grows, so its energy decreases if pressure p is positive."

(A) Picky, picky, picky, it was "your" link.
(B) You are the one misreading it.
(C) And if Energy is not lost then it is not decreasing, contradicting your very linked abstract.
Part of the universe is expanding away from the BB and another part is contracting into the supermassive black hole, so energy is conserved.

You have misread it and still do. The energy of matter is not lost and in a closed system cannot be lost.

It can change form, however.

I have not misread it, I quoted it to show you that you misread it when you denied that the abstract said energy is NOT conserved.

 

[edthecynic]

Oh come off it. It is an established law of science that nothing can exist prior to itself. It can be re-phrased in a variety of ways. But it essentially is the FLoT. In fact, you can point to NO reputable scientist who would say that anything can exist without being created (excepting the essential paricles of matter/energy) and possibly excluding the state that existed at or prior to the so-called Big Bang.

It is not the FLoT or you would be able to use the actual words of the FLoT to make your case.

It is FLoT and the odd thing here is that you KNOW it is FLoT.

The law of conservation of mass/matter, also known as principle of mass/matter conservation is that the mass of a closed system will remain constant over time, regardless of the processes acting inside the system. A similar statement is that mass cannot be created/destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space, and changed into different types of particles. This implies that for any chemical process in a closed system, the mass of the reactants must equal the mass of the products. This is also the main idea of the first law of thermodynamics.

Conservation of mass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And where exactly does that say, "NOTHING can exist prior to itself?" The closest you can get is, nothing can exist that isn't Energy.