God for london mayor...

[S4TAN]

They cannot say that the matter made itself because this would be a direct violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. We know matter cannot make itself, so where did it come from.

If you read up on zero-point energy (sometimes called 'vacuum' energy) you'll see that matter can actually appear as if from 'nothing'- subatomic particles and their anti-particle partners are continuously appearing from the quantum substrate of vacuum space - they exist for a infintessimally short period of time before annihilating each other, and thus appearing, then disappearing from the total sum of mass/energy of the universe (i.e. zero net gain) - however, sometimes the annihilations do not occur: a good example is Hawking radiation; around the event horizon (or Swarzchild radius) of a black hole (right on the very edge) matter and anti-matter particles 'pop' out of the quantum substrate, and sometimes the anti-particle of the pair crosses the event-horizon of the black hole and is lost (nothing can escape from a black hole once it has crossed the event horizon) - this leaves the matter particle of the matter/anti-matter pair un-annihilated and left to lead an existence as a 'real' particle in space (there is no matching anti-matter particle to annihilate it) - this effect has been observed as radiation energy escaping a black-hole - and is why black-holes are theorised to 'cool' over a very long period, eventually leading to their ultimate demise - black-holes 'lose' energy by swallowing anti-matter, and the 'real' matter appears as if it emanates from the black holes event boundary in the form of radiation energy (energy and matter are intrinsically linked - at extremely high temperatures they are actually the same thing)

Physicists used to say "there's no such thing as a free lunch" (in line with the 1st law of thermodynamics) .... nowadays they know that there actually can be!

The world of quantum mechanics and quantum electro-dynamics which underpins our entire universe is a very strange world indeed!

[Turbo Joe]

I never stated that Woody's mother passed because of a lack of faith, can't you read? I stated that it was a tragic event but I could provide no answers as to why it happened, read the posts properly. How can I say on the one hand that I have no idea why his mother passed away, but then on the other state that it was a lack of faith?

I'm sure if Woody thought that I said that, he would have seriously repped me for it and rightly so, because that would be an extremely low thing to say. As he has said nothing to me, I take it that he understands that one part of the post was totally serperate from the other. Just for your sake I will repeat myself clearly. I have no idea as to why Woody's mother passed away.

I know its an open forum and at first people were posting some good and worthy questions to answer but over time the questions have turned to silly comments from folks who do not have the bottle to join in and I think you need to check over your comments to me again because I seem to recall you call me a "sucker" Dom.

[Turbo Joe]

However the evolutionist still has the problem of explaining how the universe came to be. To date evolutionists cannot explain where the matter came from for this big bang. They cannot say that the matter made itself because this would be a direct violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. We know matter cannot make itself, so where did it come from. You see without a feasible beginning, you cannot have a coherent theory.

Maybe the simple answer is that there never was a beginning to the universe, it just is. Time is a human concept after all and perhaps the universe is timeless just as it is probably infinite. All the scientific theories we have today are simply our way of trying to understand what is out there, and to be frank are probably wrong anyway. Why does there have to be a beginning to it all? IMHO if the universe is timeless then it does away with the need for big bang theories and God in equal measure. I'm sure you will laugh at what I say here, but if God created the world/universe then who created God (age old question there)? In fact, as I am sure you are aware, there are religions based on God and the Universe being the same thing (Pantheism), conscious or otherwise. Personally I think that is more likely to be true, but is just as unproveable.

Now see the problem you now have here sir is this conclusion is in direct conflict with the second law of thermodynamics which basically states that everything tends towards disorder meaning that there had to have been a beginning point. The 2nd law of theromdynamics is present all around us. Unless something is maintained, it will fall and break apart. Take a look something like a house or a car. I experienced the 2nd law in June 2007 when my KO3s went. Do we now conclude that KO3 turbos have always been there infinitely? No, there was a time when they were built and brand new. As soon as they were placed on my car and the car hit the road, the 2nd law kicked in. So from the observations around us, we can see that everything has a beginning and is winding down and because the universe is doing the same, it had to have had a beginning accordingly.

Ah yes the age old question, who created God? Well God(The God of the bible) if he had to be created then he cannot be God. Also if God be understood by humans then he cannot be God. The God that I worship can be in yesterday, today and tomorrow all at the same time. We as humans cannot comprehend someone who has always been. From the biblical perspective, God created time, space and matter at the same time. Once upon a time, there was a time where there was no time. Even as a christian I find that difficult to take in, seeing that as I understanding things in life from daily observations, everything has a beginning. this is simply because I am human and do not have a full understanding of everything, I mean the ladder of knowledge goes on for ever.

Yes sir, I am aware of pantheism, however this is clearly man's attempt to bring God down to his own level. Man has a pretty hard time accepting that there may infact be a being more intelligent than him out there. We only have to look at life on a day to day basis to see that patheism is very doubtful. If you created a box are you now part of the box? No, you are above the box and far beyond it. You are also not limited to the same limitations that the box has. People can look at the box and see certain signatures and techniques in its design and conclude that you made it from those observations. So from a bibical perspective,we can look at man and get a basic idea of who God is(God sees, God has intelligence, God has emotions, God hears, God can touch etc). The bible states that God is holy. the word holy simply means "seperate" which tell us that God is outside of the creation he made. In many ways our physical earth can give us some clues as to how things can work in the spiritual realm.

[CliveH]

Are you dumb in any other area?

yet another eloquent example of your christian attittude!!! you can keep it!

The rest of what you write is poorly structured nonsense and doesn't adress a single point raised by S4TAN - are we surprised? of course not, just more of the same

[CliveH]

I have no problem with science and never have.

no, you're just very selective in when/how you choose to acknowledge it

[CliveH]

Fact 1: Animals today only bring forth offspring after the same kind. We have never observed any different, never. Nobody has every seen an animal produce a fundamentally different kind of animal.

check out the mule Blower

[Dom81]

How can I say on the one hand that I have no idea why his mother passed away, but then on the other state that it was a lack of faith?

By saying -

...any unfortunate circumstances that have happened in your life, the devil is clearly to blame and not God...Though I have no idea why your mother was taken I will say on a general day to day basis of our lives, when you reject the commandments of God, you automatically give the devil a legal right to come into your life

It implies "of course I don't know why, but on a general basis, the answer is this..." Don't blame the reader on this one.

[CliveH]

exactly that Dom! you found it before I did, but he's already backtracked on this one and claims that they're 2 totally unrelated statements!

and the best bit is "you automatically give the devil a legal right to come into your life"!!! a legal right not only does he think these fairies at the bottom of the garden exist, but they actually have legal rights....!!

[Ads4]

What amazes me is that, after all these thousands of years, we have yet to find the meaning of life, the proof of an existence of a 'holy figure', the proof of a 100% evolution process.....it goes on. What we do have are continents that are suffering, people that have no food, clean water...
If we could spend less on space exploration and more on helping the needy then we could within ourselves find some sort of inner peace. As to the rest of it...what does it matter? He believes in one thing, he believes in another....what changes? Sod all.....

[Turbo Joe]

They cannot say that the matter made itself because this would be a direct violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. We know matter cannot make itself, so where did it come from.

If you read up on zero-point energy (sometimes called 'vacuum' energy) you'll see that matter can actually appear as if from 'nothing'- subatomic particles and their anti-particle partners are continuously appearing from the quantum substrate of vacuum space - they exist for a infintessimally short period of time before annihilating each other, and thus appearing, then disappearing from the total sum of mass/energy of the universe (i.e. zero net gain) - however, sometimes the annihilations do not occur: a good example is Hawking radiation; around the event horizon (or Swarzchild radius) of a black hole (right on the very edge) matter and anti-matter particles 'pop' out of the quantum substrate, and sometimes the anti-particle of the pair crosses the event-horizon of the black hole and is lost (nothing can escape from a black hole once it has crossed the event horizon) - this leaves the matter particle of the matter/anti-matter pair un-annihilated and left to lead an existence as a 'real' particle in space (there is no matching anti-matter particle to annihilate it) - this effect has been observed as radiation energy escaping a black-hole - and is why black-holes are theorised to 'cool' over a very long period, eventually leading to their ultimate demise - black-holes 'lose' energy by swallowing anti-matter, and the 'real' matter appears as if it emanates from the black holes event boundary in the form of radiation energy (energy and matter are intrinsically linked - at extremely high temperatures they are actually the same thing)

Physicists used to say "there's no such thing as a free lunch" (in line with the 1st law of thermodynamics) .... nowadays they know that there actually can be!

The world of quantum mechanics and quantum electro-dynamics which underpins our entire universe is a very strange world indeed!

I see 2 immediate problems with this proposal.

1. Reducing the size of the matter/particles in no wise helps the big bang at all. The fact is the evolutionist still has matter coming into existence regardless of the size and no explanation as to how it actually came into existence. Particles coming out of vacuums only postpone the problem. How were this particles made in the first place remains an unanswered question and the first that needs to be addressed? Also who/what is placing this particles in one side of the vacuum for them to appear at the other end? Again, this would take a medium and again, this is another serious problem for the evolutionist and this is before the big bang has even got started.

2. The evolutionist still does not have a medium mechanism to yoke the energy to the particles and cause them to act in the way that they were proposed to at the big bang. Example, You have a natural gas fire(say a hob or a bunsen burner) and in your hand you hold a match which is lit to ignite the gas. If your hand does not bring the flame to the gas, the gas will not ignite period. Your hand, its movement and the only ability to bridge the gap is the medium. Likewise with the big bang, the evolutionists have put forward proposal after proposal but they cannot explain how the matter came to be in the first place nor can they explain what medium brought together the energy and the particles to initiate this big bang.

3. A model that shows us how particles can come from seemingly nothing today is by no means a reflection on how it could have happened in the past. This is called Uniformatarionism, in other words "the present is the key to the past".This proposal for the cycles of life was invented by James Hutton in the late 1700s to allow for the millions/billions of years that the evolutionist needs to make the theory look feasible. How certain particles act or perform today does not mean that they have always performed in the same manner in times past.

This is the point I have been trying to make. I believe the God of the bible created the whole universe. Immediately because I cannot prove this I hold up my hands and say yes this is a religious belief, why, because it was not observed, therefore it is not science, it falls into the realm of religion. However, the evolutionist puts forward proposal after proposal sighting of how the universe MIGHT have come into existence or how it is BELIEVED to have got here, and he is called a scientist. This seems to be clearly a double standard.

[Turbo Joe]

I have no problem with science and never have.

no, you're just very selective in when/how you choose to acknowledge it

The dictionary definition of science is the following: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

There are no experiments that can show that a dog could come from something that was non dog, none. Therefore by the official definition, not according to me(as you are trying to accuse me of being selective in how I acknowledge science, which is bogus) believing that animals could produce something other that their kind in times past(as the evolutionist states) is just that, a belief, why, because it cannot be observed or tested.

However, we CAN conduct experiments to show that it is not possible to intermingle different kinds of animals, that unless they are the same kind of animal, they cannot reproduce. We have had the last 6000 years of human history show us this again and again.

So no, I do not have a problem with the observed data, what I have a problem with is the wild extrapolations that are made by the evolutionist that take us into realms, zones, ideas and areas that CANNOT be observed. That is not scientific, that is religious. Like I stated before, the evolutionist constantly jumps in and out of religion without even clocking on to the fact that he is doing it.

[Turbo Joe]

Fact 1: Animals today only bring forth offspring after the same kind. We have never observed any different, never. Nobody has every seen an animal produce a fundamentally different kind of animal.

check out the mule Blower

Stand 10 feet away and look at it Clive, it still in the same KIND as its parents regardless of its fertility position. Also not all mules are born infertile, but you are missing the point. A horse and a donkey can bring forth, a horse and zebra can also bring forth, however a horse and a monkey cannot. Sure animals within the same kinds may have diversified to such an extend that they can no longer interbreed such as Alaskan rabbits and Florida rabbits but even a 5 year old can see that they are still RABBITS.

A definition of Kind is "those which were originally able to bring forth". A wolf and a dog can bring forth offspring so therefore they are obviously the same kind, however a wolf and a goat cannot bring forth.

[CliveH]

No, you're missing the point.

No one has suggested that a monkey and zebra can produce an offspring - you have a habit of going off at tangents, particularly when you're unable to answer a simple question.

You were trying to run the argument that "nobody has ever seen an animal produce a fundamentally different kind of animal, never".

As evolution takes place over a long period of time, it's not the sort of thing we're likely to observe in our lifetimes, but I thought just one example of something that is observable might just open your blinkered eyes just a little bit - stand as close or as far away as you want - it's there for you to see.

[JohnW]

sheesh, are you guys still at it !

picking up on this 'different kind of animal', that is not evolutionist. Evolution says that things evolve. The definition of evolve is to: develop or achieve gradually. That doesn't mean create a different being, it means adapt to its surroundings, along the lines of survival of the fittest as already stated.

Anyway, here is another thing to ponder on, slightly related to carbon dating.
Why is it that the calendar uses the year of christ's birth to count from ?
I assume its merely because we didn't care what year it was prior to a certain time.
This date seems to be variable depending on the source: look here http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... m0004.html
(I didn't know until I read the above that the date was actually calculated in the middle ages).
I wonder if the guy took into account that the number of months in a year have changed...

Keep up the debate guys

[CliveH]

Quite right John - the different kind of animal issue has very little to do with evolution, I was just dealing with Blower's somewhat obscure point.

As for "the year of our Christ" (AD), there is much to be said, but nothing much worthwhile. Although some countries and religions still have their own systems, based on some other historic event from their religion, the arbitrary system that we use to record time has now become an internationally accepted standard.

As for the months, these have indeed changed over time - the original Roman calendar having only 10 months, with September, October, November, and December meaning 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th month respectively.

tbh, I think the debate is fruitless and has run its course. I'm surprised S4TAN has had so much patience with him while I've been away.

Lets see what Boris can do with the position...