The All-Powerful Creator

[LuftWaffle]

Hi Viole,

This is not correct. Physics does not exclude the possibility of entities traveling faster than light. For instance, the

phase velocity of waves can be faster than light.

So, are you saying that the Big Bang was an explosion of waves' phases or was it hydrogen atoms?

And "...does not exclude the possibility..." isn't exactly a statement brimming with confidence.

The trick is that the principle of cause effects excludes the

possibility to send messages at a faster than light speed; because this will result in the possibility to send

information in the past creating logical paradoxes.

Shall we assume that cause and effect was on vacation in Switzerland during the initial stages of the Big Bang?

But if a certain phenomenon cannot be used to send information (for instance quantum entanglement),

then nothing prevents it from traveling faster than light.

erm...

what?

I've just remembered why I hate quantum physics

Actually it goes further than that. According to some new theories on black holes, it is possible for the same astronaut

falling inside a black hole to have two completely different stories, both real. In a story he will die before reaching

the limits of the hole, in the other he just goes through without immediate harm. This depends on who is the observer,

and as long as the same observer is in the physical impossibility to see both stories, then the laws of physics allow

both fates for the said astronaut to happen. This is basically the principle of complementarity for macroscopic

objects (quite common for microscopic ones).

Uh-huh...

Anybody want a biscuit?

I never said that. Appearances are never deceiving to the same observer or class

of communicating observers.

You said, "Looks like Nature allows all crazy things to happen as long as no logical contradiction is observable. But if we think about that,

this is not strange, it is how Nature works. It is just that our brains did not evolve to have an intuition of such things (it is

not needed to fight predators and survive on earth). "

So what's unfathomable and crazy is quite possible, but for some reason a six thousand year old universe is just a little too crazy?

The central point is that the universe can have different stories, but an observer will

never be able to see them both. And if two observers see different stories, then

physics prohibts them to communicate and detect a contradiction (for instance one

inside a black hole and the other not).

ya, erm...

Observers that are able to communicate, will all agree on the outcome of a certain

experiment or observation (after a covariant transformation of coordinates).

Hey, I once owned a "covariant transformation of coordinates" a while back but the one wheel came off as I was going downhill and well... got hurt.

Sorry Viole, I'm probably being a bit rude, but apart from Ricky Lake I can't think if anything less relevant to real life than quantum physics. Perhaps I'm just too dumb, narrowminded or something, but I don't get it...and I don't want to get it. I have limited neurons in my brain and I don't want to waste them.

Thank you though for taking the time and effort explaining this to me, but it's in one ear (or eye...coz we're on teh internetz) and out the other.

Edited March 18, 2011 by LuftWaffle

[LuftWaffle]

What's the Swede on about?

She thinks that I've suggested that causes can be their own effects to account for the origin of the universe, which is incredible given how frequently I've stated the origin of the material must have been a seperate, immaterial cause - which I then followed up with pages of explainations and illustrations... so many that even I stopped reading them (and the evidence is that she never started).

She actually misunderstood when I pointed out that she is making this error in insisting that the universe had no origin but that entropy's non-linear.

Don't you just love when someone thinks they've got an out because they make an abstract referece?

"O well, that's easy... the universe didn't need a cause, because of... entropy... uh, non-linear... relativity! There, you see? Otherwise, you'd have to say that... um, causes would have to be their own effects, because *mumble* and then *mumble*, which would be absurd!"

Presto.

I think saunas have something to do with it.

If you boil yourself in a wooden box, then run out and jump into a hole cut into a frozen lake... I mean, who does that?

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Also, I understand that if Lorentzian relativity is true then you'd have even less ability to hide behind the theory of relativity.

And why should I hide behind the theory of relativity?

?

What's the theory of relativity to do with that?

Because you're trying to suggest that the universe didn't require a cause.

Don't tell me that in addition to ignoring what I'm saying, you've started ignoring what you're saying too.

And what is Lorentzian relativity? You mean Lorentzian transformations?

I think you are a bit confused on things regarding theoretical physics.

Well, that's fair enough. I'm not too up on theoretical physics and this theory is included, but the Neo-Lorentzian interpretation of the Theory of Relativity is another one of Dr. Craigs babies (if memory serves he did his doctrinal thesis on cosmology, but he's not a YEC, himself - though he's not convinced of evolution).

Here's a write up that shows how his argument challenges your assertion:

With respect to the universe

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

No, I am referring to another post on another thread where you try to justify the "looking old" quality of the universe:

As you so eloquently said, concerning the age of the universe:

"No, it

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Because you're trying to suggest that the universe didn't require a cause.

What does relativity have anything to do with the universe not having a cause?

I don't know, my point was that it didn't make sense to me either, but that's what you said to Luftwaffle a bunch of posts back, and its what the argument I posted the review for was addressing.

If there's no pretense at an 'out' in there then you're really without an excuse for your cosmology.

And relativity cannot be applied at the singularity, for that you need a quantum loop

What, like Ziggy? O wait...

or string theory; therefore Mr.Craig argumentation is also not so up-to-date.

Unless he's got a string theory?

[Don Fanucci]

Hang on, before we get into a lengthy discussion on dating, lets get back to the topic at hand first. You stated that the creationist must consider that God would be deceitful if the earth was young, but appeared old. I believe I have shown that I have considered this. Every premise in the argument from a deceitful God must be true in order for the conclusion to be valid and I have shown that with the exception of premise 4 (given that we trust scripture) none are necessarily true.

Also note that you've already admitted that premise 2 isn't necessarily true by saying, "We could, by all of our measures, be wrong in our observations regarding the age of the earth"

I'd also like to point out again that you can't observe the age of the earth, you calculate the age of the earth based on observations, plus certain a priori assumptions.

I know you're eager to get to dating methods and the science stuff but you made a theological-philosophical statement which we have to deal with first. We must take responsibility for our arguments.

LW, actually, as a Christian, I cannot rule out the possibility of a miracle, which you allude to. In short God made everything miraculously, which by definition, lies outside of science. But that is not how creationists argue. If creationists said that they agree with everything scientists say with regard to evolution, but still believe in Genesis, there would be no discussion, frankly, because the two sides would be speaking different languages. But this is not the case. Creationists try to argue the science, and that argument usually revolves around trying to prove evolution is scientifically false. This leads us to a situation of you (creationists) not being able to have it both ways. If you are trying to disprove evolution using scientific principles, when those critiques are rebutted, its end of story. Not accepting something because you don't understand it or don't believe it even though irrefutable evidence is presented doesn't work. My opinion regarding evolution and the Genesis account is somewhat along the miraculous lines in that I believe that the author of the universe is so complex that we cannot comprehend the true meaning and depth of Genesis, and if we could, it would work seamlessly with science--they would not be in conflict. Everything that we know and experience, including how we study the bible, how we learn and verify what is in the bible, is not in contradiction with those aspects that we use to conclude an old earth. There are countless independent disciplines, all of which argue an old earth. These methods are in agreement with each other, and independently verifiable. Yes, you can argue they are all false yet God is not deceiving us. But then you can't really argue creation with science since your argument would move out of the realm of our world and how we can test it.

[Believer112]

Hang on, before we get into a lengthy discussion on dating, lets get back to the topic at hand first. You stated that the creationist must consider that God would be deceitful if the earth was young, but appeared old. I believe I have shown that I have considered this. Every premise in the argument from a deceitful God must be true in order for the conclusion to be valid and I have shown that with the exception of premise 4 (given that we trust scripture) none are necessarily true.

Also note that you've already admitted that premise 2 isn't necessarily true by saying, "We could, by all of our measures, be wrong in our observations regarding the age of the earth"

I'd also like to point out again that you can't observe the age of the earth, you calculate the age of the earth based on observations, plus certain a priori assumptions.

I know you're eager to get to dating methods and the science stuff but you made a theological-philosophical statement which we have to deal with first. We must take responsibility for our arguments.

LW, actually, as a Christian, I cannot rule out the possibility of a miracle, which you allude to. In short God made everything miraculously, which by definition, lies outside of science. But that is not how creationists argue. If creationists said that they agree with everything scientists say with regard to evolution, but still believe in Genesis, there would be no discussion, frankly, because the two sides would be speaking different languages. But this is not the case. Creationists try to argue the science, and that argument usually revolves around trying to prove evolution is scientifically false. This leads us to a situation of you (creationists) not being able to have it both ways. If you are trying to disprove evolution using scientific principles, when those critiques are rebutted, its end of story. Not accepting something because you don't understand it or don't believe it even though irrefutable evidence is presented doesn't work. My opinion regarding evolution and the Genesis account is somewhat along the miraculous lines in that I believe that the author of the universe is so complex that we cannot comprehend the true meaning and depth of Genesis, and if we could, it would work seamlessly with science--they would not be in conflict. Everything that we know and experience, including how we study the bible, how we learn and verify what is in the bible, is not in contradiction with those aspects that we use to conclude an old earth. There are countless independent disciplines, all of which argue an old earth. These methods are in agreement with each other, and independently verifiable. Yes, you can argue they are all false yet God is not deceiving us. But then you can't really argue creation with science since your argument would move out of the realm of our world and how we can test it.

Do you believe man came from monkeys?

[Don Fanucci]

Do you believe man came from monkeys?

No

[Guest]

actually, as a Christian, I cannot rule out the possibility of a miracle, which you allude to. In short God made everything miraculously, which by definition, lies outside of science. But that is not how creationists argue.

If creationists said that they agree with everything scientists say with regard to evolution, but still believe in Genesis, there would be no discussion, frankly, because the two sides would be speaking different languages. But this is not the case.

Creationists try to argue the science, and that argument usually revolves around trying to prove evolution is scientifically false.

Scientists And Teachers And Law Makers And Such Know Better, Scientifically

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Romans 1:20-22

Yet Many Scientists (Even Here On Worthy!) Will Mix Pagan Philosophies Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

And While Pontificating About The Lord's Creation

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 2 Peter 3:3-7

They Will Proudly Proclaim The Big Lie

Yea, hath God said Genesis 3:1(d)

And Darken The Truth

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6

Until Time

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:36

Ends

And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;

And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand? Revelation 6:14-17

What Kind Of Love Is This?

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay:

for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not?

or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it,

He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:16

[Believer112]

Do you believe man came from monkeys?

No

So you believe one portion of the Genesis account? Man was created from God and we did not evolve?