****Official Bill Nye The Science Guy Thread******* (1 Viewer)

[GeauxTigers]

Where is the evidence of god?

The Big Bang? Like I said in my earlier post, define "God".

 

[shader]

Well if it were true, that would be great. But since you don't have a "massive amount of evidence" to support the entire theory, you are left to ridicule, laugh and act ignorantly. You have a massive amount of evidence in some portions of the theory. But the overall theory itself? Not at all.

You are woefully misinformed, and you repeatedly hike up this tree.Your argument is ridiculous.

If you think so, it's a pointless discussion. There are a large number of intelligent, thinking people that have similar views to myself. Just as there are intelligent people who disagree with it. Calling one side ridiculous is the height of arrogance.

 

[GeauxTigers]

define related? You mean they have DNA? Yes, they all have DNA. That is irrelevant when trying to determine if life was created or evolved.

You can trace every single living organism that has ever lived on the planet back to a common ancestor. You learn this in biology 101. End of story. Evolution is FACT.Created is totally different and much more complicated than evolution.

 

[shader]

define related? You mean they have DNA? Yes, they all have DNA. That is irrelevant when trying to determine if life was created or evolved.

You can trace every single living organism that has ever lived on the planet back to a common ancestor. You learn this in biology 101. End of story. Evolution is FACT.Created is totally different and much more complicated than evolution.

I've seen your shtick before. I'm 99% convinced you are a creationist trying to make evolutionists look silly.

 

[GeauxTigers]

Humans are the only animals that know they are going to die.

Elephants know they are going to die. They go to an elephant graveyard and die.

I hadn't heard this. Do they know, or is that innate?

I don't know. I just know they go to a graveyard and die. Does it really matter if it's innate or not? They know.

 

[JZilla]

Humans are the only animals that know they are going to die.

Elephants know they are going to die. They go to an elephant graveyard and die.

I hadn't heard this. Do they know, or is that innate?

I don't know. I just know they go to a graveyard and die. Does it really matter if it's innate or not? They know.

Most animals don't just drop dead where they're standing.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Then you have done an excellent job hiding that knowledge with the claims you have made about the Bible and Christianity in this thread.

What claims? Are you really suggesting that I am misreading the timeline in Genesis?

Don't sweat it, though. There's a lot of people here who think they know a lot about the Bible and Christianity because they were forced to go to church and/or sent to parochial schools as children. We've even got a philosophy professor who pops in from time to time with experience teaching comparative religion, yet in religion threads repeatedly failed to demonstrate even a basic understanding of "Saved by Grace through faith". It was like reading someone who claimed to be an expert on American football and having no idea what a quarterback was, much less his role on a football field.

Actually, it is usually the Christians that have problems demonstrating a basic understanding of what is written in the Bible. They are rarely show any sort of internal consistency. The vast majority haven't read a single book of the Bible with any sort of critical thought.Regardless, Creationism as defined in the Bible has zero evidence for it. So, unless you are making the claim that God is some sort of cosmic prankster, the evidence for Evolution absolutely crushes any other mechanism put forth.

 

[GeauxTigers]

define related? You mean they have DNA? Yes, they all have DNA. That is irrelevant when trying to determine if life was created or evolved.

You can trace every single living organism that has ever lived on the planet back to a common ancestor. You learn this in biology 101. End of story. Evolution is FACT.Created is totally different and much more complicated than evolution.

I've seen your shtick before. I'm 99% convinced you are a creationist trying to make evolutionists look silly.

WTF are you talking about? You are insane dude. I just said evolution is a fact. You are the one who believes in creationism.Don't twist my words. You are the one who comes into these threads and tries to "act like a scientist" and then say..."but we don't have all the evidence yet".Evolution is a proven fact.All living organisms on earth...or the DNA rather...are just simple chemical reactions at the atomic level when you break it all down. Go take a science class dude.

 

[JZilla]

Actually, it is usually the Christians that have problems demonstrating a basic understanding of what is written in the Bible. They are rarely show any sort of internal consistency. The vast majority haven't read a single book of the Bible with any sort of critical thought.

Reading the Bible is the first step toward free thought. Worked for me.Religious leaders are counting on their flock not to bother

 

[matuski]

Well if it were true, that would be great. But since you don't have a "massive amount of evidence" to support the entire theory, you are left to ridicule, laugh and act ignorantly. You have a massive amount of evidence in some portions of the theory. But the overall theory itself? Not at all.

You are woefully misinformed, and you repeatedly hike up this tree.Your argument is ridiculous.

If you think so, it's a pointless discussion. There are a large number of intelligent, thinking people that have similar views to myself. Just as there are intelligent people who disagree with it. Calling one side ridiculous is the height of arrogance.

You are factually wrong to claim the Theory of Evolution is not supported by massive amounts of evidence. Massive is an understatement.Tested and strengthened everyday by innumerable convergent scientific evidence. You are arguing from ignorance about a "theory", when you need to be talking about the Theory. Seriously, go try to learn about this yourself and let us know how Evolution became a Theory without massive amounts of evidence.Yours is akin to saying the Theory of General Relativity is not supported by massive amounts of evidence. Just plain ridiculous.

 

[shader]

Then you have done an excellent job hiding that knowledge with the claims you have made about the Bible and Christianity in this thread.

What claims? Are you really suggesting that I am misreading the timeline in Genesis?

Don't sweat it, though. There's a lot of people here who think they know a lot about the Bible and Christianity because they were forced to go to church and/or sent to parochial schools as children. We've even got a philosophy professor who pops in from time to time with experience teaching comparative religion, yet in religion threads repeatedly failed to demonstrate even a basic understanding of "Saved by Grace through faith". It was like reading someone who claimed to be an expert on American football and having no idea what a quarterback was, much less his role on a football field.

Actually, it is usually the Christians that have problems demonstrating a basic understanding of what is written in the Bible. They are rarely show any sort of internal consistency. The vast majority haven't read a single book of the Bible with any sort of critical thought.Regardless, Creationism as defined in the Bible has zero evidence for it. So, unless you are making the claim that God is some sort of cosmic prankster, the evidence for Evolution absolutely crushes any other mechanism put forth.

I totally agree

 

[matuski]

Actually, it is usually the Christians that have problems demonstrating a basic understanding of what is written in the Bible. They are rarely show any sort of internal consistency. The vast majority haven't read a single book of the Bible with any sort of critical thought.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Don't be a smart ### and strike through my post, dude. Palestine and Israel ARE fighting over land right now.

And why are they so adamant about that particular piece of land, dude?

 

[Marvin]

One group has a massive amount of evidence to prove its theory and the other group says 'god did it'.

This should be the only reply whenever one of these threads pops up. Yet somehow we get sucked into to arguing with a bunch of rubes.

Well if it were true, that would be great. But since you don't have a "massive amount of evidence" to support the entire theory, you are left to ridicule, laugh and act ignorantly. You have a massive amount of evidence in some portions of the theory. But the overall theory itself? Not at all.That being said, you don't need the evidence, because you have already discounted any possibility for a creator, and because we are here. So you imagine that since it obviously happened, the details will become apparent one day.

When compared with the evidence there is for proving God exists (and obviously Creationism) it is massive.

You just keep trying to pound your completely irrational and childish belief system into your head. Let me know how that works out.

 

[GeauxTigers]

Don't be a smart ### and strike through my post, dude. Palestine and Israel ARE fighting over land right now.

And why are they so adamant about that particular piece of land, dude?

Seriously, dude?

 

[shader]

One group has a massive amount of evidence to prove its theory and the other group says 'god did it'.

This should be the only reply whenever one of these threads pops up. Yet somehow we get sucked into to arguing with a bunch of rubes.

Well if it were true, that would be great. But since you don't have a "massive amount of evidence" to support the entire theory, you are left to ridicule, laugh and act ignorantly. You have a massive amount of evidence in some portions of the theory. But the overall theory itself? Not at all.That being said, you don't need the evidence, because you have already discounted any possibility for a creator, and because we are here. So you imagine that since it obviously happened, the details will become apparent one day.

When compared with the evidence there is for proving God exists (and obviously Creationism) it is massive.

You just keep trying to pound your completely irrational and childish belief system into your head. Let me know how that works out.

Belittle the opposition. A sure sign that you have a firm grasp on the subject matter you believe in.

 

[matuski]

Belittle the opposition. A sure sign that you have a firm grasp on the subject matter you believe in.

Could I beg you to summarize for us how a set of hypotheses becomes a scientific Theory? Forget evolution, just in general how a Theory earns its status as such in science.Your repeated refusal to demonstrate even the most remedial understanding of the subject matter is the only thing you've given us.

 

[MasterofOrion]

Most people believe in creation event. Scientist call it Big Bang. An event where all energy and mass was created out of well... nothing. So why is God being a creator any more stupid than believing the universe came from nothing?

Because God encompasses quite a bit more than the Big Bang. The two are no where close to equivalent.

What? Creating everything from nothing is creation. Call it big bang or call it a God event, the results are the same - all scientific laws where broken when it happened.

Almost done with the video. It is all about dark matter. Something nobody has ever seen or generated. Space, nothing, has a gravitational force. So his points are:1. The dominate energy is space resides in empty space

2. We have no idea why it there

3. Its existence is probably tied to the very nature of space and time and to the origin of the universe.

4,This will determine our future.

From this he derived a mathematical equation that proves that the universe could be created from nothing.

My points is that all know laws were violated when the big bang happened.

1. First law of thermodynamics: the law of conservation of energy. Creating energy from nothing violates this law.

2. Second law of thermodynamics is entropy. This is on oversimplification- but material objects wear out; organisms die; the universe is cooling down. Entropy, like time, runs in one direction only. There is no such thing as perpetual motion machine. When the big bang happened we went from no energy high energy (going up hill) which obviously violates the second law.

3. Relativity - His answer was just to put the cosmological constant on the other side - why ? Because it works. Vacuum theory is weird, it states at the beginning of time the universe expanded several times the speed of light. This concept violates relativity.

4. Quantum mechanics- The only time I use quantum mechanics is when I need to understand entropy, so I am not an expert. The only way to really understand entropy is to understand microstates. So violating the second law also violates quantum mechanics. (I could be wrong on this.)



We are constantly trying to explain how the universe came from nothing. The answers are that mathematical it can happen. It is not based on something we can see or measure. For example - dark matter or string theory. However, we really knew how to make something from nothing than we solve our energy problem. We could twitch our noise and create a rabbit. It is great fun mathematically but very very hard to prove or use.

 

[Apes with Guns]

when i was a kid, i learned about evolution at a catholic school. i also learned about adam and eve. im not sure how i separated the two concepts, but i seem to have been able to. why is this fight necessary?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Don't be a smart ### and strike through my post, dude. Palestine and Israel ARE fighting over land right now.

And why are they so adamant about that particular piece of land, dude?

Seriously, dude?

Seriously dude. Why is that land so precious each of them?

 

[MasterofOrion]

define related? You mean they have DNA? Yes, they all have DNA. That is irrelevant when trying to determine if life was created or evolved.

You can trace every single living organism that has ever lived on the planet back to a common ancestor. You learn this in biology 101. End of story. Evolution is FACT.Created is totally different and much more complicated than evolution.

I've seen your shtick before. I'm 99% convinced you are a creationist trying to make evolutionists look silly.

WTF are you talking about? You are insane dude. I just said evolution is a fact. You are the one who believes in creationism.Don't twist my words. You are the one who comes into these threads and tries to "act like a scientist" and then say..."but we don't have all the evidence yet".Evolution is a proven fact.All living organisms on earth...or the DNA rather...are just simple chemical reactions at the atomic level when you break it all down. Go take a science class dude.

Please tell me what evolution is and then show me the proof.Problem is evolution is defined as change over time. I have no problem with that. But it isn't very satisfying and does not do what you think it does- Prove that life and the complexity of life happened without God. It is just some water down definition that doesn't help anybody figure anything out.

 

[JZilla]

when i was a kid, i learned about evolution at a catholic school. i also learned about adam and eve. im not sure how i separated the two concepts, but i seem to have been able to. why is this fight necessary?

When I was a kid I learned that evolution and plate tectonics were bogus ideas that had been proven wrong.I didn't know a THING about either one of them until I was in my late 20's

 

[Marvin]

define related? You mean they have DNA? Yes, they all have DNA. That is irrelevant when trying to determine if life was created or evolved.

You can trace every single living organism that has ever lived on the planet back to a common ancestor. You learn this in biology 101. End of story. Evolution is FACT.Created is totally different and much more complicated than evolution.

I've seen your shtick before. I'm 99% convinced you are a creationist trying to make evolutionists look silly.

WTF are you talking about? You are insane dude. I just said evolution is a fact. You are the one who believes in creationism.Don't twist my words. You are the one who comes into these threads and tries to "act like a scientist" and then say..."but we don't have all the evidence yet".Evolution is a proven fact.All living organisms on earth...or the DNA rather...are just simple chemical reactions at the atomic level when you break it all down. Go take a science class dude.

Please tell me what evolution is and then show me the proof.Problem is evolution is defined as change over time. I have no problem with that. But it isn't very satisfying and does not do what you think it does- Prove that life and the complexity of life happened without God. It is just some water down definition that doesn't help anybody figure anything out.

You do the same. Prove that life and the complexity of life happened WITH God. While we're at it please prove that God exists.

 

[JZilla]

define related? You mean they have DNA? Yes, they all have DNA. That is irrelevant when trying to determine if life was created or evolved.

You can trace every single living organism that has ever lived on the planet back to a common ancestor. You learn this in biology 101. End of story. Evolution is FACT.Created is totally different and much more complicated than evolution.

I've seen your shtick before. I'm 99% convinced you are a creationist trying to make evolutionists look silly.

WTF are you talking about? You are insane dude. I just said evolution is a fact. You are the one who believes in creationism.Don't twist my words. You are the one who comes into these threads and tries to "act like a scientist" and then say..."but we don't have all the evidence yet".Evolution is a proven fact.All living organisms on earth...or the DNA rather...are just simple chemical reactions at the atomic level when you break it all down. Go take a science class dude.

Please tell me what evolution is and then show me the proof.Problem is evolution is defined as change over time. I have no problem with that. But it isn't very satisfying and does not do what you think it does- Prove that life and the complexity of life happened without God. It is just some water down definition that doesn't help anybody figure anything out.

You do the same. Prove that life and the complexity of life happened WITH God. While we're at it please prove that God exists.

Hasn't he provided enough links for you haters yet?

 

[matuski]

Please tell me what evolution is and then show me the proof.

This has been done for you ad nauseum over the years.I believe Scissors spent about 2 years here schooling us all on the topic. You were there, with your head in the sand the whole time.Where is scissors? New alias?

 

[Time Kibitzer]

when i was a kid, i learned about evolution at a catholic school. i also learned about adam and eve. im not sure how i separated the two concepts, but i seem to have been able to. why is this fight necessary?

Read the first post of this thread.

 

[Marvin]

define related? You mean they have DNA? Yes, they all have DNA. That is irrelevant when trying to determine if life was created or evolved.

You can trace every single living organism that has ever lived on the planet back to a common ancestor. You learn this in biology 101. End of story. Evolution is FACT.Created is totally different and much more complicated than evolution.

I've seen your shtick before. I'm 99% convinced you are a creationist trying to make evolutionists look silly.

WTF are you talking about? You are insane dude. I just said evolution is a fact. You are the one who believes in creationism.Don't twist my words. You are the one who comes into these threads and tries to "act like a scientist" and then say..."but we don't have all the evidence yet".Evolution is a proven fact.All living organisms on earth...or the DNA rather...are just simple chemical reactions at the atomic level when you break it all down. Go take a science class dude.

Please tell me what evolution is and then show me the proof.Problem is evolution is defined as change over time. I have no problem with that. But it isn't very satisfying and does not do what you think it does- Prove that life and the complexity of life happened without God. It is just some water down definition that doesn't help anybody figure anything out.

You do the same. Prove that life and the complexity of life happened WITH God. While we're at it please prove that God exists.

Hasn't he provided enough links for you haters yet?

He hasn't provided any proof.

 

[Apes with Guns]

when i was a kid, i learned about evolution at a catholic school. i also learned about adam and eve. im not sure how i separated the two concepts, but i seem to have been able to. why is this fight necessary?

Read the first post of this thread.

I did that. I just don't understand why it's necessary to take this fight into the schools. Kids can handle learning both concepts, in different mediums, and make up their own minds. I don't see the need for one side to try to force their opinions on the other.

 

[JZilla]

He hasn't provided any proof.

Yeah I was kidding. All you're going to get are more asinine links. My recommendation would be to stop engaging this particular gentleman.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

when i was a kid, i learned about evolution at a catholic school. i also learned about adam and eve. im not sure how i separated the two concepts, but i seem to have been able to. why is this fight necessary?

Read the first post of this thread.

I did that. I just don't understand why it's necessary to take this fight into the schools. Kids can handle learning both concepts, in different mediums, and make up their own minds. I don't see the need for one side to try to force their opinions on the other.

Because creationism doesn't hold up to any form of scientific testing whatsoever, so why would you teach something like that in a science class?

 

[JZilla]

when i was a kid, i learned about evolution at a catholic school. i also learned about adam and eve. im not sure how i separated the two concepts, but i seem to have been able to. why is this fight necessary?

Read the first post of this thread.

I did that. I just don't understand why it's necessary to take this fight into the schools. Kids can handle learning both concepts, in different mediums, and make up their own minds. I don't see the need for one side to try to force their opinions on the other.

Lots of kids aren't learning real science. It's a problem I don't think the government is going to fix. Society needs a little evolution itself. It will happen in time.

 

[Mario Kart]

He hasn't provided any proof.

Yeah I was kidding. All you're going to get are more asinine links. My recommendation would be to stop engaging this particular gentleman.

I love getting my confirmation of creation showing different pictures of butterflies on YouTube. We have come so far yet it feels like we're going backwards.

 

[matuski]

when i was a kid, i learned about evolution at a catholic school. i also learned about adam and eve. im not sure how i separated the two concepts, but i seem to have been able to. why is this fight necessary?

Read the first post of this thread.

I did that. I just don't understand why it's necessary to take this fight into the schools. Kids can handle learning both concepts, in different mediums, and make up their own minds. I don't see the need for one side to try to force their opinions on the other.

Do you want Zeus and Apollo featured in Biology class as well? Perhaps after they dissect a worm we can have our kids speculate on the Norse gods' role in their creation?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I've heard many scientists say that calling evolution a theory is like calling gravity a theory. It's entirely provable.

What does that mean? (Neither theory is provable.)

 

[JZilla]

I've heard many scientists say that calling evolution a theory is like calling gravity a theory. It's entirely provable.

What does that mean? (Neither theory is provable.)

I just proved one of them. Do I get money?

 

[matuski]

I've heard many scientists say that calling evolution a theory is like calling gravity a theory. It's entirely provable.

What does that mean?(Neither theory is provable.)

I just proved one of them. Do I get money?

You may have reinforced it, you didn't prove it.

 

[JZilla]

I've heard many scientists say that calling evolution a theory is like calling gravity a theory. It's entirely provable.

What does that mean?(Neither theory is provable.)

I just proved one of them. Do I get money?

You may have reinforced it, you didn't prove it.

The level of proof I'm talking about is proof enough. You don't just not educate people. We learn plenty about gravity in school.Always cute when you guys play too smart for the room though.

 

[JZilla]

For fear of coming off as too hostile.. I think it's clear what jdogg meant by "provable." These things can be shown and seen and even replicated. Granted, they can't be fully explained yet. You guys are just picking on semantics.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Almost done with the video. It is all about dark matter.

No. It's about cosmology. Dark matter and energy are part of that field.Something nobody has ever seen or generated.

There's a reason you can't see it. It's dark. It doesn't interact with EM radiation. We've "seen" these things in that we can infer their existence. For example, dark matter bends light and creates gravitational lensing. It also explains why galaxies spin the way they do.



1. The dominate energy is space resides in empty space

Dominant, yes. Most of the energy in the universes is of the "dark" variety. This is a consensus opinion.



2. We have no idea why it there

This doesn't invalidate our observations that it is there. We don't "know why" lots of things are the way they are in particular.



3. Its existence is probably tied to the very nature of space and time and to the origin of the universe.

Yes.



4,This will determine our future.

Understanding how the universe works is useful for that purpose, yes.

From this he derived a mathematical equation that proves that the universe could be created from nothing.

Krauss is giving a talk on the current state of cosmology. It's not like he himself did all of this and is reporting the result. This is where the state of the science is. He showed that knowing the "shape" of the universe to be "flat" had profound consequences. One of these is that there is a net energy of zero and that the big bang could have spontaneously occurred.

My points is that all know laws were violated when the big bang happened.

No.

1. First law of thermodynamics: the law of conservation of energy. Creating energy from nothing violates this law.

No. Energy was not created. The net energy of the universe was zero then, and is zero now. A form of energy was created, but the overall energy of the system (the universe) is effectively canceled (positive and negative contributions) to be zero.

2. Second law of thermodynamics is entropy. This is on oversimplification- but material objects wear out; organisms die; the universe is cooling down. Entropy, like time, runs in one direction only. There is no such thing as perpetual motion machine. When the big bang happened we went from no energy high energy (going up hill) which obviously violates the second law.

No. The second law is not violated. The entropy of the universe is increasing, but local areas of the universe show order. The net change is still positive.

3. Relativity - His answer was just to put the cosmological constant on the other side - why ? Because it works. Vacuum theory is weird, it states at the beginning of time the universe expanded several times the speed of light. This concept violates relativity.

Actually, he stated that the speed of galaxies would exceed the speed of light (using a comoving distance calculation) to a point where we'd have an observational event horizon, similar to what is seen in a black hole, so that somewhere down the line, there would be no way to even test aspects of how the universe works. Since you're so fond of Wikipedia, you should read this entry. Krauss explicitly stated that this does not violate general relativity since velocity in that theory is only considered locally.

Calling something "weird" is the point. Quantum mechanics is "weird." All of it is "weird."

4. Quantum mechanics- The only time I use quantum mechanics is when I need to understand entropy, so I am not an expert.

I guess we'll ignore this point then since your description was not germane to the topic.

We are constantly trying to explain how the universe came from nothing. The answers are that mathematical it can happen. It is not based on something we can see or measure.

See, that's just it. These elements of the theory are based on observation. It's not just mathematical contrivance based on thought experiments. Krauss actually dismisses String Theory for being metaphysical rather than science, and he's right. A theory that predicts anything isn't a theory. That goes for "god did it" as well.

For example - dark matter or string theory. However, we really knew how to make something from nothing than we solve our energy problem. We could twitch our noise and create a rabbit. It is great fun mathematically but very very hard to prove or use.

The success of a theory of how the universe works doesn't necessitate that we can harness the implications for practical use. Sure, that would be nice, but it's not a valid critique.

You're welcome.

 

[JZilla]

Feels like it's been a few years

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Actually, it is usually the Christians that have problems demonstrating a basic understanding of what is written in the Bible. They are rarely show any sort of internal consistency. The vast majority haven't read a single book of the Bible with any sort of critical thought.

I get into it all the time with other Christians who have a specialized interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Ranethe]

Feels like it's been a few years

Worth the wait though.

 

[matuski]

Almost done with the video. It is all about dark matter.

No. It's about cosmology. Dark matter and energy are part of that field.Something nobody has ever seen or generated.

There's a reason you can't see it. It's dark. It doesn't interact with EM radiation. We've "seen" these things in that we can infer their existence. For example, dark matter bends light and creates gravitational lensing. It also explains why galaxies spin the way they do.



1. The dominate energy is space resides in empty space

Dominant, yes. Most of the energy in the universes is of the "dark" variety. This is a consensus opinion.



2. We have no idea why it there

This doesn't invalidate our observations that it is there. We don't "know why" lots of things are the way they are in particular.



3. Its existence is probably tied to the very nature of space and time and to the origin of the universe.

Yes.



4,This will determine our future.

Understanding how the universe works is useful for that purpose, yes.

From this he derived a mathematical equation that proves that the universe could be created from nothing.

Krauss is giving a talk on the current state of cosmology. It's not like he himself did all of this and is reporting the result. This is where the state of the science is. He showed that knowing the "shape" of the universe to be "flat" had profound consequences. One of these is that there is a net energy of zero and that the big bang could have spontaneously occurred.

My points is that all know laws were violated when the big bang happened.

No.

1. First law of thermodynamics: the law of conservation of energy. Creating energy from nothing violates this law.

No. Energy was not created. The net energy of the universe was zero then, and is zero now. A form of energy was created, but the overall energy of the system (the universe) is effectively canceled (positive and negative contributions) to be zero.

2. Second law of thermodynamics is entropy. This is on oversimplification- but material objects wear out; organisms die; the universe is cooling down. Entropy, like time, runs in one direction only. There is no such thing as perpetual motion machine. When the big bang happened we went from no energy high energy (going up hill) which obviously violates the second law.

No. The second law is not violated. The entropy of the universe is increasing, but local areas of the universe show order. The net change is still positive.

3. Relativity - His answer was just to put the cosmological constant on the other side - why ? Because it works. Vacuum theory is weird, it states at the beginning of time the universe expanded several times the speed of light. This concept violates relativity.

Actually, he stated that the speed of galaxies would exceed the speed of light (using a comoving distance calculation) to a point where we'd have an observational event horizon, similar to what is seen in a black hole, so that somewhere down the line, there would be no way to even test aspects of how the universe works. Since you're so fond of Wikipedia, you should read this entry. Krauss explicitly stated that this does not violate general relativity since velocity in that theory is only considered locally.

Calling something "weird" is the point. Quantum mechanics is "weird." All of it is "weird."

4. Quantum mechanics- The only time I use quantum mechanics is when I need to understand entropy, so I am not an expert.

I guess we'll ignore this point then since your description was not germane to the topic.

We are constantly trying to explain how the universe came from nothing. The answers are that mathematical it can happen. It is not based on something we can see or measure.

See, that's just it. These elements of the theory are based on observation. It's not just mathematical contrivance based on thought experiments. Krauss actually dismisses String Theory for being metaphysical rather than science, and he's right. A theory that predicts anything isn't a theory. That goes for "god did it" as well.

For example - dark matter or string theory. However, we really knew how to make something from nothing than we solve our energy problem. We could twitch our noise and create a rabbit. It is great fun mathematically but very very hard to prove or use.

The success of a theory of how the universe works doesn't necessitate that we can harness the implications for practical use. Sure, that would be nice, but it's not a valid critique.

You're welcome.

This is where golddigger brings up the next tangent and pretends you never posted this.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

... It doesn't prove anything in regards to the entire "theory of evolution" as a whole. You're using it to try and prove the whole theory and that is disingenuous.

What exactly is the "whole theory"? Which pieces can be removed from the "whole theory" and leave the "truth" of evolution in place? "Special Creation"? "Intelligent Design"?

Well it's a fundamental difference in the way you approach the entire universe.Obviously, if you refuse to accept a Creator that lives outside of the physical universe, then the fact that we are all here REQUIRES that you believe in evolution. Obviously, how else would we be here? So to a staunch atheist, there is no question at all about whether evolution happened, because here we are.I'm not as interested in what I can test scientifically, I'm interested in what the truth is, and in what really happened.My brain doesn't allow for the construction of the universe, DNA and the structure and order of everything we see, just due to blind chance. Obviously, I feel there had to be something that designed it. That basic outlook is as simple as 1+1 to me. But others disagree, and they have that right. But neither side can prove how it all happened, and I have more faith in God and the things I feel he left us, than I do in science and their ability to eventually prove that it all happened by chance.Because like it or not, we are here, and we either were created by God or we evolved. We can debate all day long, but one group is right and one is wrong. I guess it's up to the individual to decide what they believe.So back to your question, I'm perfectly comfortable taking certain things out of the theory of evolution, because I have allowed for the existence of a force that exists outside of the physical world. If you don't allow for that, than you obviously cannot take out parts of the theory of evolution, because you've already determined that there is no possibility for a God regardless of what obstacles you find. So a person in that state just chalks up any challenges to the fact that science is still learning and moves on, completely comfortable in their beliefs.

I think that your post here makes Bill Nye's point perfectly. You reject evolution simply because you lack any real understanding of it. You were never properly taught (or you were unwilling to be taught) enough of the basics to intelligibly evaluate anything. And your lack of knowledge ultimately results in demonstrating a lack of faith in God as your "fall back position" necessitates that God either be deceptive and/or incompetent. Deceptive in creating a universe with billions of years of wear and tear on it to lead our understanding off the universe astray. Incompetent if God cannot use the wonderfully simple mechanism of evolution to evolve the primordial ooze to creatures created in "God's image". If God is worth worshiping then God should not be afraid that we use our God given abilities to learn how God "did it", nor should Christians. If knowledge actually drives people from God then that is damning evidence against the existence of God.

 

[MasterofOrion]

define related? You mean they have DNA? Yes, they all have DNA. That is irrelevant when trying to determine if life was created or evolved.

You can trace every single living organism that has ever lived on the planet back to a common ancestor. You learn this in biology 101. End of story. Evolution is FACT.Created is totally different and much more complicated than evolution.

I've seen your shtick before. I'm 99% convinced you are a creationist trying to make evolutionists look silly.

WTF are you talking about? You are insane dude. I just said evolution is a fact. You are the one who believes in creationism.Don't twist my words. You are the one who comes into these threads and tries to "act like a scientist" and then say..."but we don't have all the evidence yet".Evolution is a proven fact.All living organisms on earth...or the DNA rather...are just simple chemical reactions at the atomic level when you break it all down. Go take a science class dude.

Please tell me what evolution is and then show me the proof.Problem is evolution is defined as change over time. I have no problem with that. But it isn't very satisfying and does not do what you think it does- Prove that life and the complexity of life happened without God. It is just some water down definition that doesn't help anybody figure anything out.

You do the same. Prove that life and the complexity of life happened WITH God. While we're at it please prove that God exists.

If you say that evolution proven as gravity then it is fair to say prove it. The logic that the other can't prove God exists means evolution is true is faulty logic. It does not pass the smell test. Evolution has to stand on its own 2 feet.

 

[mad sweeney]

define related? You mean they have DNA? Yes, they all have DNA. That is irrelevant when trying to determine if life was created or evolved.

You can trace every single living organism that has ever lived on the planet back to a common ancestor. You learn this in biology 101. End of story. Evolution is FACT.Created is totally different and much more complicated than evolution.

I've seen your shtick before. I'm 99% convinced you are a creationist trying to make evolutionists look silly.

WTF are you talking about? You are insane dude. I just said evolution is a fact. You are the one who believes in creationism.Don't twist my words. You are the one who comes into these threads and tries to "act like a scientist" and then say..."but we don't have all the evidence yet".Evolution is a proven fact.All living organisms on earth...or the DNA rather...are just simple chemical reactions at the atomic level when you break it all down. Go take a science class dude.

Please tell me what evolution is and then show me the proof.Problem is evolution is defined as change over time. I have no problem with that. But it isn't very satisfying and does not do what you think it does- Prove that life and the complexity of life happened without God. It is just some water down definition that doesn't help anybody figure anything out.

You do the same. Prove that life and the complexity of life happened WITH God. While we're at it please prove that God exists.

If you say that evolution proven as gravity then it is fair to say prove it. The logic that the other can't prove God exists means evolution is true is faulty logic. It does not pass the smell test. Evolution has to stand on its own 2 feet.

That's not what he's saying. Hold your theory that God did it to the same standards of proof that you're holding evolutionary theories to. you'll find your answer lies way, way below any scientific answers that way.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...Evolution has to stand on its own 2 feet.

 

[Claydon]

I see golddigger/masteroforion is up to his usual antics....

ETA: Just ignore him....debating him only makes him think he has a case....and he doesn't

 

[mad sweeney]

I see golddigger/masteroforion is up to his usual antics....ETA: Just ignore him....debating him only makes him think he has a case....and he doesn't

I live for Pickles slapping him down and letting the supposedly smart MoO butcher English grammar, move the goalposts, deflect, backtrack and contradict himself in nearly every post. True unintentional FFA humor is hard to find and he always produces.

 

[MasterofOrion]

Almost done with the video. It is all about dark matter.

No. It's about cosmology. Dark matter and energy are part of that field.Something nobody has ever seen or generated.

There's a reason you can't see it. It's dark. It doesn't interact with EM radiation. We've "seen" these things in that we can infer their existence. For example, dark matter bends light and creates gravitational lensing. It also explains why galaxies spin the way they do.



1. The dominate energy is space resides in empty space

Dominant, yes. Most of the energy in the universes is of the "dark" variety. This is a consensus opinion.



2. We have no idea why it there

This doesn't invalidate our observations that it is there. We don't "know why" lots of things are the way they are in particular.



3. Its existence is probably tied to the very nature of space and time and to the origin of the universe.

Yes.



4,This will determine our future.

Understanding how the universe works is useful for that purpose, yes.

From this he derived a mathematical equation that proves that the universe could be created from nothing.

Krauss is giving a talk on the current state of cosmology. It's not like he himself did all of this and is reporting the result. This is where the state of the science is. He showed that knowing the "shape" of the universe to be "flat" had profound consequences. One of these is that there is a net energy of zero and that the big bang could have spontaneously occurred.

My points is that all know laws were violated when the big bang happened.

No.

1. First law of thermodynamics: the law of conservation of energy. Creating energy from nothing violates this law.

No. Energy was not created. The net energy of the universe was zero then, and is zero now. A form of energy was created, but the overall energy of the system (the universe) is effectively canceled (positive and negative contributions) to be zero.

2. Second law of thermodynamics is entropy. This is on oversimplification- but material objects wear out; organisms die; the universe is cooling down. Entropy, like time, runs in one direction only. There is no such thing as perpetual motion machine. When the big bang happened we went from no energy high energy (going up hill) which obviously violates the second law.

No. The second law is not violated. The entropy of the universe is increasing, but local areas of the universe show order. The net change is still positive.

3. Relativity - His answer was just to put the cosmological constant on the other side - why ? Because it works. Vacuum theory is weird, it states at the beginning of time the universe expanded several times the speed of light. This concept violates relativity.

Actually, he stated that the speed of galaxies would exceed the speed of light (using a comoving distance calculation) to a point where we'd have an observational event horizon, similar to what is seen in a black hole, so that somewhere down the line, there would be no way to even test aspects of how the universe works. Since you're so fond of Wikipedia, you should read this entry. Krauss explicitly stated that this does not violate general relativity since velocity in that theory is only considered locally.

Calling something "weird" is the point. Quantum mechanics is "weird." All of it is "weird."

4. Quantum mechanics- The only time I use quantum mechanics is when I need to understand entropy, so I am not an expert.

I guess we'll ignore this point then since your description was not germane to the topic.

We are constantly trying to explain how the universe came from nothing. The answers are that mathematical it can happen. It is not based on something we can see or measure.

See, that's just it. These elements of the theory are based on observation. It's not just mathematical contrivance based on thought experiments. Krauss actually dismisses String Theory for being metaphysical rather than science, and he's right. A theory that predicts anything isn't a theory. That goes for "god did it" as well.

For example - dark matter or string theory. However, we really knew how to make something from nothing than we solve our energy problem. We could twitch our noise and create a rabbit. It is great fun mathematically but very very hard to prove or use.

The success of a theory of how the universe works doesn't necessitate that we can harness the implications for practical use. Sure, that would be nice, but it's not a valid critique.

You're welcome.

You really are off base. If I go point by point you will miss the point. Dark Matter is not a proven theory. In fact recent advances put it absolute shambles. Link Look at the video at the bottom of the page present by "space".

Our model appears to rule out the presence of dark matter in the universe, threatening a central pillar of current cosmological theory," said study team member Pavel Kroupa, a professor of astronomy at the University of Bonn. "We see this as the beginning of a paradigm shift, one that will ultimately lead us to a new understanding of the universe we inhabit."

The statement also implies that previous "understanding of the universe" was misguided or absent.

Here is another article stating that recent finding put our current understanding of cosmology in shambles.

In an earlier article by the same author he states That finding "could provide ammunition for skeptics who argue that the invisible substance is just an illusion"



This is a great quote.

There is something you are seeing that you cannot explain, and you blame the gravity of something you cannot see." JPL scientist.



Also all know mass and energy was created in moment, violating the first and second law of thermodynamics. Relativity was broken - mass can not travel the speed of light. The cosmological constant is a fudge factor (not even an assumption). Moving it the other side of the equation does not make it any more valid. Quantum mechanics was broken for many reasons part of which is related to microstates..



Creating all the know mass and energy from a singularity violates all know chemical and physical laws.



Putting your faith in an equation with unproven science is bad. It is way beyond my faith in God.



Your welcome