Science for a pre-sin world

[ok doser]

good

if you understand the concept of entropy, then you should understand that this means that the universe, as a closed system, cannot have existed forever and will not exist forever

do you agree?

 

[Jose Fly]

if you understand the concept of entropy, then you should understand that this means that the universe, as a closed system, cannot have existed forever

Yes it can. Time itself did not exist until the moment of the big bang. Thus, there was no "before the big bang", which means as far as the past, there was no time in which the universe did not exist.

 

[ok doser]

Yes it can. Time itself did not exist until the moment of the big bang. Thus, there was no "before the big bang", which means as far as the past, there was no time in which the universe did not exist.

sorry josie, i'm having a discussion with greg

 

[6days]

Anything measurable or tangible. Anything that can verify the creation story instead of just blindly assuming it to be truth. ANYTHING

Stripe was correct... " evolutionists hate to...."
(Not all evolutionists of course... some actually can dialogue)

 

[Jose Fly]

sorry josie, i'm having a discussion with greg

 

[Greg Jennings]

good

if you understand the concept of entropy, then you should understand that this means that the universe, as a closed system, cannot have existed forever and will not exist forever

do you agree?

I think most physicists agree with you that the universe had a beginning. But the explanations for what was "before" the universe (because you can't really have a "before" prior to the existence of time) are numerous and completely ideological as there is no way to measure what existed (if anything) "before" the laws of physics that we are familiar with existed.

On the end of the universe: physicists are split on whether cosmic expansion will continue to the point where everything gets so far from everything else that it fizzles out without truly "dying," the universe will eventually collapse in on itself and result in another Big Bang, or whether the entropy we see will continue until there is a perfect equilibrium of matter throughout the entire universe (basically the result of that is that everywhere in the universe would look, feel, and act exactly like everywhere else in the universe. Logically, quantum physics leads to this conclusion).

 

[Greg Jennings]

Stripe was correct... " evolutionists hate to...."
(Not all evolutionists of course... some actually can dialogue)

So basically, you can't find any real evidence? You know, the kind that you constantly refuse to acknowledge exists in favor of a 4 billion year old Earth in fields as varied as astronomy, geology, paleontology, archaeology, nuclear physics, chemistry, biochemistry, biology, quantum physics.......?

They have strong evidence but are all wrong, and you have no evidence but are undoubtedly right, correct?

 

[6days]

So basically, you can't find any real evidence? You know, the kind that you constantly refuse to acknowledge exists in favor of a 4 billion year old Earth in fields as varied as astronomy, geology, paleontology, archaeology, nuclear physics, chemistry, biochemistry, biology, quantum physics.......?

Stripe was correct

 

[Greg Jennings]

Stripe was correct

:rotfl:

Okie dokie

 

[ok doser]

I think most physicists agree with you that the universe had a beginning.

logically, it must have, given entropy

if you agree, we'll go on


if the universe had a beginning, do you agree that, logically, it must have come from something?

 

[Greg Jennings]

logically, it must have, given entropy

if you agree, we'll go on


if the universe had a beginning, do you agree that, logically, it must have come from something?

I think so, but no it doesn't have to have come from anything. We don't have enough information to say that

 

[GuySmiley]

Welp.....I backed off completely gave this a couple days in hope that someone would offer what I was asking for: scientific evidence of a pre-sin world or of a time when all creatures were vegetarians and nobody died. So far the closest thing I've gotten (and it's not close to being scientific) is "Genesis 1." If that counts as science then so does The Odyssey, meaning that scylla and cyclops are real. That's doubtful

So can the creationists here admit that there is NO scientific evidence for their origin story, and that it's simply a belief with no substantiating evidence?
And finally quit trumpeting that "science supports Genesis"?

Evidence of a pre-sin world where all creatures were vegetarians and nobody died is not the same as the entire origin story. Nice try. Atheists hate Logic (literally).

 

[patrick jane]

Stripe was correct... " evolutionists hate to...."
(Not all evolutionists of course... some actually can dialogue)

I see Stripe's dialogues are akin to a brick wall - :bang:

 

[Stripe]

You mean this?
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Trenches5.html#wp17582632

:BRAVO:

Honestly, it's like pulling teeth with you lot.

The errors on that specific page are so mind-boggling it's not even funny.

But you won't say what they are.

It is not evidence for creation.

Sure, it is.

It is, however, excellent evidence for why creationist sites are either uneducated or dishonest.

Because it is written by an MIT-educated Phd? :AMR:

Think about this Stripe: if the science is so supportive of Genesis, then why must you go to creationist websites in order to find any claimed evidence?

Because a degree in Earth Science revealed next to nothing about the fundamentals. :thumb:

Do you have any science training?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Evidence of a pre-sin world where all creatures were vegetarians and nobody died is not the same as the entire origin story. Nice try. Atheists hate Logic (literally).

Do you have evidence for either?

I'll wait

 

[ok doser]

I think so, but no it doesn't have to have come from anything.

scientifically, it does

logically, it does

you can't make something from nothing

not in the lab, not in the real world

 

[Greg Jennings]

:BRAVO:

Honestly, it's like pulling teeth with you lot.

I know that having to substantiate your claims is unsettling, but also it's necessary for you to claim "scientific evidence"

But you won't say what they are.

If I did, would you honestly consider what I said? No, of course not. So why would I waste my time? I've tried to do that with you before. It's an exercise in futility.

Because it is written by an MIT-educated Phd? :AMR:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Brown_(creationist)
Read if you will

Because a degree in Earth Science revealed next to nothing about the fundamentals. :thumb:

What?

Do you have any science training?

I had to spend a lot of time in class, in labs, and in the field to get my degree. So yes

 

[ok doser]

I had to spend a lot of time in class, in labs, and in the field to get my degree. So yes

two of my degrees are in fields of chemistry and i'm currently on a PhD track in the medical field

what's your degree?

 

[Greg Jennings]

scientifically, it does

Absolutely not

logically, it does

If it's logical that everything has a beginning, then God must also have a beginning. Saying "he is eternal" violates your own logic. If God can be eternal, why not the universe?

you can't make something from nothing

Not within the laws of physics that came into being when the universe was created. Before that, your claim has no validity

not in the lab, not in the real world

See my last response above

 

[GuySmiley]

Do you have evidence for either?

I'll wait

:chuckle: Wow, you really do hate reading.