In a universe where creationists defend how nothing comes from nothing

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
Thanks for asking! Its not an equation; its a number that describes the repetitive nature of creation (its an algorithm).

Ok. It's one one of many numbers that are used by nature to create and grow (or shrink) into infinity. I got ya. I'm just sorta lost on what you're trying to establish or prove by mentioning it.

Actually, we probably shouldn't call it a number either, even though it is. But it's a Transcendental Number which means we can only approximate it's value to a degree. Which is why we give them symbols rather than say it's such and such value. Or do like you did and put some "..." after it saying it continues.

Phi is one of my favorite if not the favorite value that I know of actually. I was kinda obsessed with it for a while.

a reply to: mOjOm

Hope you understand the reference!



Though Pi and Phi are different, eh?

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Ya, I like that movie. I read somewhere that the guy who made it went off in the woods and camped out and took various drugs for a couple weeks or maybe longer while writing it. Not sure if it's true or not but either way I did enjoy it and thought it was one of the better indie films that I've seen.

He talked about phi in the movie too but I'm guessing the name Pi was used because not many people are familiar with Phi.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: spy66

Sure it is easy enough to find. I will post the link to the paper here.


I am not afraid to say the maths are beyond me. If I tried to falsify it, it would be like pigeons playing chess.

Thank you.

The graph is quite intesesting indeed.

a reply to: andre18

How can you say this...

And for these people, this thread is made to show that one piece of science they ever had is now useless.

After saying this...

And i never said fact, but a theory that's recently gaining a hell of a lot of traction and evidence.

Good for you, you've selected one of the many theories that you believe and have faith in...





Don't mind me, I'm just giving you a deserved "slap in the face"!!!

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

No you didn't demonstrate anything. Basically Genesis one is saying

Plants and trees that have the ability to bear fruit. It doesn't say there is fruit and seed all ready to eat.

genesis 2 verse 5 confirms this

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

There were stars and heavenly bodies and there was a light source he created the heavens and the earth first then the light. The sun afterwards

I've explained about thermal radiation. Additionally at this point it wouldn't have been freezing. You don't need just the fruit because you can eat the plant also. Also the conditions were different. I've already explained the excellerated growth with higher co2 compared today's world.

There are also studies of enhanced growth using hydrogen sulphide and what was the earth like, according to science at the beginning

The widely accepted view of early Earth is that the atmosphere was burdened with noxious methane, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide and ammonia, and that persistent oxidizing conditions only began when the Earth was 2.3 billion years old, around half its current age.

And light

There has been light from the beginning. There will be light, feebly, at the end. In all its forms—visible and invisible

Literally thousands of laboratory and field experiments have conclusively demonstrated that enriching the air with carbon dioxide stimulates the growth and development of nearly all plants. They have also revealed that higher-than-normal CO2 concentrations dramatically enhance the efficiency with which plants utilize water, sometimes as much as doubling it in response to a doubling of the air's CO2 content. These CO2-induced improvements typically lead to the development of more extensive and active root systems, enabling plants to more thoroughly explore larger volumes of soil in search of the things they need. Consequently, even in soils lacking sufficient water and nutrients for good growth at today's CO2 concentrations, plants exposed to the elevated atmospheric CO2 levels expected in the future generally show remarkable increases in vegetative productivity, which should enable them to successfully colonize low-rainfall areas that are presently too dry to support more than isolated patches of desert vegetation. Elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 also enable plants to better withstand the growth-retarding effects of various environmental stresses, including soil salinity, air pollution, high and low air temperatures, and air-borne and soil-borne plant pathogens. In fact, atmospheric CO2 enrichment can actually mean the difference between life and death for vegetation growing in extremely stressful circumstances. In light of these facts, it is not surprising that Earth's natural and managed ecosystems have already benefited immensely from the increase in atmospheric CO2 that has accompanied the progression of the Industrial Revolution; and they will further prosper from future CO2 increases.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: andre18

How can you say this...

And for these people, this thread is made to show that one piece of science they ever had is now useless.

After saying this...

And i never said fact, but a theory that's recently gaining a hell of a lot of traction and evidence.

lol you're thinking very simply - sure they might make new discoveries in the next second, day or year, but the evidence isn't something that's going to be dismissed, but only improved upon. The singularity has been explained away, yes it's still a work in progress, but due to the momentum it's being explored it's not coming back. I can say that with an assuring confidence. Creationists are out of ammunition.

The paper doesn't prove that black holes cannot form. It simply says that under certain conditions they cannot form.

There is a massive amount of observational evidence that black holes do form.

The paper hasn't been peer reviewed so any mistakes she may have made aren't uncovered yet.

How does she account for the Cosmic background noise that killed the "steady state" theory in the first place? She doesn't....

Mathematical models are often proven wrong by observational evidence. Copernicus' mathematical model of the orbit of Venus was mathematically sound but was completely wrong.....

Singularity's have not been "explained away"......

Recent headlines have proclaimed “Black Holes Don’t Exist!” They’re wrong. Black holes absolutely exist. We know this observationally. We know by the orbits of stars in the center of our galaxy that there is a supermassive black hole in its center. We know of binary black hole systems. We’ve found the infrared signatures of more than a million black holes. We know of stellar mass black holes, and intermediate mass black holes. We can even see a gas cloud ripped apart by the intense gravity of a black hole. And we can take images of black holes, such as the one above. Yes, Virginia, there are black holes.

Source

It's a mistake to take media hype at face value.... y'all should know that by now.

a reply to: drevill

Genesis one is saying.. Plants and trees that have the ability to bear fruit. It doesn't say there is fruit and seed all ready to eat.

It’s really not saying that. It used the operative words sprout, yielding, and bearing. Followed by the phrase “And it was so”. Then it says Earth brought forth and repeats those same operative words. It’s clearly saying on Day 3 there were plants, sprouting, yielding, and bearing [fruit included].

We will have to agree to disagree here I guess *shrug*

I've already explained the excellerated growth with higher co2 compared today's world.”

That information was not taking into account perpetual freezing temperature with zero sunlight.

And light..

"In all its forms visible and invisible"

Vague. I could easily interpret that as the ‘invisible light’ being the light prior to day 4 and the metaphysical light I suggested. Proves nothing.

Okay let’s say Genesis 2 does refute my argument Genesis says there was fruit-bearing trees prior to Day 4.

Don’t forget my other one! This one you can’t get out of.

Genesis says all stars were made after Earth.

^You’re not going to find any cosmologist, religious or secular, that thinks the science supports Earth having formed prior to all stars in the Universe. None living anyways.

Playing chess with Pigeons is an exercise in futility.... he's just going to # on the board and strut around like he won anyway...

Y'all have a lovely day...

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
Thanks for asking! Its not an equation; its a number that describes the repetitive nature of creation (its an algorithm).

Ok. It's one one of many numbers that are used by nature to create and grow (or shrink) into infinity. I got ya. I'm just sorta lost on what you're trying to establish or prove by mentioning it.

Actually, we probably shouldn't call it a number either, even though it is. But it's a Transcendental Number which means we can only approximate it's value to a degree. Which is why we give them symbols rather than say it's such and such value. Or do like you did and put some "..." after it saying it continues.

Phi is one of my favorite if not the favorite value that I know of actually. I was kinda obsessed with it for a while.

This is all good mOjOm; not trying to establish or prove anything by mentioning it EXCEPT it describes the repetitive/repeating nature of form in all things (god aspect residing in the form/algorithm). Next question; what 'animates' all of this?

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
This is all good mOjOm; not trying to establish or prove anything by mentioning it EXCEPT it describes the repetitive/repeating nature of form in all things (god aspect residing in the form/algorithm). Next question; what 'animates' all of this?

Do you mean why does nature use phi when creating living things???

I think one reason why phi is used is because it's the one value that uniquely satisfies certain requirements for change so perfectly. For example, phi is unique in that phi to the power of n is equal to phi^n + 1. Therefore phi to the power of 0 = 1. Perfect. So it is self similar in it's proportions as it grows or shrinks. It also fills space the most efficient way possible which means it satisfies the law of conservation of energy as well.

I can see why the Greeks loved this number and also why people like Pythagoras and others saw something akin to divinity within mathematics. There is beauty, balance, and rhythm to it that isn't found anywhere else and that IMO makes it the closest thing I've ever known to real magic being at play in our reality. Many people actually consider phi to be divine in some sense. Usually in the context of mathematics being the true language of God and phi being God's signature.

I'm not sure if that's what you were talking about though. I just got lost thinking about phi once again and drifted way off course...

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

No it don't Govnor

Said stars I have already explained were the Angels. In the beginning the heavens and the earth

Later a tinker and a tinker there

The universe wasn't cold at creation. The sun doesn't warm the universe

Re the sun. Again it's just a theory

Although the nebular theory is widely accepted, there are still problems with it that astronomers have not been able to explain away. One of these problems is the planets’ axial tilts. According to the nebular theory, they are supposed to have the same ecliptic planet, but the inner planets and outer planets have radically different axial tilts. With technological advancements allowing astronomers to study extrasolar planets, scientists have noticed irregularities that cast doubt on the nebular hypothesis. Some of these irregularities are hot Jupiters that orbit their stars in just a few days. Astronomers have adjusted the nebular hypothesis to account for some of these problems, but so far it has not answered all the questions.

Planets traditionally travel in a uniform, singular direction, around a star. However, the free-floating planet, named PSO J318.5-22, has been found without a host. Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

astronomers observing the Rosette Nebula—a great interstellar cloud some five thousand light-years away—have found that some planet-mass objects might actually form alone, without ever having a parent star.

originally posted by: Blarneystoner
The paper doesn't prove that black holes cannot form. It simply says that under certain conditions they cannot form.

There is a massive amount of observational evidence that black holes do form.

The paper hasn't been peer reviewed so any mistakes she may have made aren't uncovered yet.

How does she account for the Cosmic background noise that killed the "steady state" theory in the first place? She doesn't....

Mathematical models are often proven wrong by observational evidence. Copernicus' mathematical model of the orbit of Venus was mathematically sound but was completely wrong.....

Indeed. And for what it's worth, these totally theoritical demonstrations - and the original claim of Prof. Hawking about the Hawking radiation - that has since 1974 never ever been measured, should be put back into perspective :

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems

The Op states.

However, if singularities do not exist, then physicists have to rethink their ideas of the Big Bang and whether it ever happened.

But they HAVE already rethought this.. er.. i guess Hawking and friends didn't get the memo.

It is now claimed the they can "prove" the Big Bang with math -

A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

medium.com...

Hey wait.. isn't that what the creationists claim also? That .. some higher being or God made the Universe out of practically nothing?

Now that Science and Religion Agree - how can they be separate?

Anyway.. we all know Math is Fallible to the extent there is always information theories do not take into account. Using other theories not only are Black holes accounted for but White holes also. I say either way, mainstream science doesn't know Jack and is unto itself a hokey religion.

originally posted by: JohnPhoenix

Now that Science and Religion Agree - how can they be separate?

They have never been ... Who came with the big bang theory ?
A Jesuit priest

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

I'm sure I've heard that somewhere before but forgot about him.. thanks..

No matter.. i don't consider Catholicism any kind of mainstream religion.. more like a hokey cult.

a reply to: JohnPhoenix

Before Our universe was formed. We state that there was nothing.

But that is not true. There must have been a void present that could form Our universe.

Why do we Call that void nothing when it clearly must be something?

a reply to: drevill

The sun doesn't warm the universe

It certainly warms our planet. The planet being referred to in Genesis.

Genesis doesn't just say the Sun and all stars were made on Day 4... it makes it clear the light that specifically separates day from night aka Sunlight on Earth is also taking place on Day 4.

All these ideas you're inventing here simply don't refute that Genesis clearly says it wasn't until Day 4 was their a Sun, and sunshine, and day-time on Earth.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

Genesis is clearly saying that until Day 4 there was no light reaching the surface of Earth in the way we think of light. Whatever light you're referring to is obviously not the kind of light that causes day-time, creates seasons, and yes...makes plants grow.

This was about my argument Genesis was contrary to science, remember? A type of stars being angels is not a scientific discussion. Genesis claiming all Stars were made after Earth is one.