Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

What I believe (and as I linked) is that he has stated that he is not of the belief that a supreme being did not create the universe.

As for the rest, he is a subject matter expert in that, thus I have no reason to doubt him. After all, he has been published in peer reviewed journals. Which if you don't understand means other scientists have tested and validated his conclusions based upon his data. I've been peer reviewed in my publications, and they do indeed test what you did.

You are now resorting to being petulant. I don't know what "created gravity", I leave that to the physicists to work out. Just like they leave the designing and manufacture of Pharmaceuticals to Chemists like myself.

Run along. *pat pat*

This is one of the things I find fascinating - just because something was said by a scientist, people are easily persuaded to accept it as scientific. They become zombie-like followers without questioning anything. They don't dare even question if such statement is philosophical in nature or not or metaphysics instead of actual physics or a merging of different disciplines.

In any case, the answer is in the quoted statement - what CREATED gravity.

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," .... "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

Did you see it?

If not, here it is: "Because there is a law such as gravity," the universe can and will create itself from nothing,".

In other words, Prof. Hawkings was either assuming or was totally convinced that gravity was the product of "a law".

But what is a law or for that matter "a law of gravity"? Furthermore, where did this "law" come from? What or who put it together?

Care to gander?

Rest of the quote:

Run along. *pat pat*

This is one of the things I find fascinating - just because something was said by a scientist, people are easily persuaded to accept it as scientific. They become zombie-like followers without questioning anything. They don't dare even question if such statement is philosophical in nature or not or metaphysics instead of actual physics or a merging of different disciplines. In any case, the answer is in the quoted statement - what CREATED gravity.

This is a perfect example of a person who is desperate for a science education. Doesn't understand zip about how science is done. Doesn't have a clue about physics or mathematics. Has no idea what hard evidence is and the significance of experimental redundancy.

If you were truly interested to know "how gravity was created" it's all there in advanced physics. It's not a mystery. And it was not "created".

For your benefit, I will post once again an illustration of the main tenets of science. This is where the rubber meets the road - if you don't understand this, then you're hopeless - which I think we already know.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

What I believe (and as I linked) is that he has stated that he is not of the belief that a supreme being did not create the universe.

As for the rest, he is a subject matter expert in that, thus I have no reason to doubt him. After all, he has been published in peer reviewed journals. Which if you don't understand means other scientists have tested and validated his conclusions based upon his data. I've been peer reviewed in my publications, and they do indeed test what you did.

You are now resorting to being petulant. I don't know what "created gravity", I leave that to the physicists to work out. Just like they leave the designing and manufacture of Pharmaceuticals to Chemists like myself.

Run along. *pat pat*

This is one of the things I find fascinating - just because something was said by a scientist, people are easily persuaded to accept it as scientific. They become zombie-like followers without questioning anything. They don't dare even question if such statement is philosophical in nature or not or metaphysics instead of actual physics or a merging of different disciplines.

In any case, the answer is in the quoted statement - what CREATED gravity.

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," .... "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

Did you see it?

If not, here it is: "Because there is a law such as gravity," the universe can and will create itself from nothing,".

In other words, Prof. Hawkings was either assuming or was totally convinced that gravity was the product of "a law".

But what is a law or for that matter "a law of gravity"? Furthermore, where did this "law" come from? What or who put it together?

Care to gander?

Rest of the quote:

Run along. *pat pat*

This is one of the things I find fascinating - just because something was said by a scientist, people are easily persuaded to accept it as scientific. They become zombie-like followers without questioning anything. They don't dare even question if such statement is philosophical in nature or not or metaphysics instead of actual physics or a merging of different disciplines. In any case, the answer is in the quoted statement - what CREATED gravity.

This is a perfect example of a person who is desperate for a science education. Doesn't understand zip about how science is done. Doesn't have a clue about physics or mathematics. Has no idea what hard evidence is and the significance of experimental redundancy.

If you were truly interested to know "how gravity was created" it's all there in advanced physics. It's not a mystery. And it was not "created".

For your benefit, I will post once again an illustration of the main tenets of science. This is where the rubber meets the road - if you don't understand this, then you're hopeless - which I think we already know.

Sure - thanks for the illustration oh wise one.

Now the question since you're the smartest one here - please confirm if what I said then in relation to Prof. Hawkings' statement is correct?

here it is: "Because there is a law such as gravity," the universe can and will create itself from nothing,".

In other words, Prof. Hawkings was either assuming or was totally convinced that gravity was the product of "a law".

In other words, LAW was the originator of GRRAAAVIIIITY!

Very simple question and doesn't take a Phud to answer it.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

No you are mistaken. As a fellow scientist I trust that his papers have been peer reveiwed just as mine have been. As such his area of expertise is something ge can talk too. This was his area of expertise. No need to get all militant it shows your jealousy regarding scientists.

You clearly dont understand laws, theories, or hypotheses in the sciences either.

So again you can't imply God here either.

I have nothing against scientists, they are great people and gave humanity enormous advancement - in many fields and endeavors. As a person working in the field of electronics and engineering, I have nothing against anyone but admiration. But when it comes to such things as Origins, in this realm, when they start positing their ideas as scientific, then it becomes a BIG ??? mark to me. You can all attack me all you want. You can belittle my knowledge all you want, still, the question remains.

And since you seem to be an authority on this matter, then you should be able to respond yourself and not pass the buck to someone else. I made an effort to understand what Prof. Hawkings said, hence the questions.

Now if you "believe" that what Dr. Hawkings said is scientific, does this mean then that statements made by philosophers are also scientific?

a reply to: edmc^2

here it is: "Because there is a law such as gravity," the universe can and will create itself from nothing,". In other words, Prof. Hawkings was either assuming or was totally convinced that gravity was the product of "a law".

You're using the word "law" as an absolute. In science, a law is not an absolute because it can always be challenged. If experimental evidence shows that the previous "law" may be faulty, then the "law" will change. This, of course, takes the work of many scientists to validate the claim.

Here is an example - I will post some additional explanation later on - but the article demonstrates how science expands on previous knowledge. Think of it this way: If scientific "law" was set in stone, there would be no point to continue research into that particular area.

NEWTON'S LAW CHALLENGED BY GRAVITY TESTS

www.washingtonpost.com...

Also, I did post a link to the complete PDF of the Hawking book - did you download it and read it? If you did, you would immediately see that there is a very extensive explanation for that statement. It's not to be interpreted lightly.

a reply to: edmc^2

You are being intellectually dishonest again. I've only ever sold myself as someone who understands biological evolution (the chemistry, biochemistry, genetics, and bioinformatics there of) . Beyond that as a scientist, I understand scientific method much better than the lay person.

You repeatedly post parts of quotes, to try and make an argument, rather than the entirety. Indeed you admit you could not finish Prof. Hawkins book, so why should your opinion matter? Its like reading chapter one of War and Peace and claiming it has all you need to know.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

You are being intellectually dishonest again. I've only ever sold myself as someone who understands biological evolution (the chemistry, biochemistry, genetics, and bioinformatics there of) . Beyond that as a scientist, I understand scientific method much better than the lay person.

You repeatedly post parts of quotes, to try and make an argument, rather than the entirety. Indeed you admit you could not finish Prof. Hawkins book, so why should your opinion matter? Its like reading chapter one of War and Peace and claiming it has all you need to know.

No. I'm not being "intellectually dishonest". Your participation in the discussion gave an impression that you're familiar with Prof. Hawkings writings and works. I guess not. I guess I'm asking the wrong person. My bad then.

As for the book, yes, I attempted to read the book in its entirety but failed to do so in the hopes of finding the answer to my question regarding the "creation" or the "spontaneous appearance" of the law of gravity. So what I did is use the Search tool in order to isolate the words law gravity. Alas 52 hits but no explanation of how it came to be. I've learned quite a lot though, of how the universe behaves and the laws that governed it. It's a fascinating book, I must say. It's a mishmash of different theories in order to arrive at a single theory (law of gravity) to explain how the universe came to be.

In any case, I guess thank you for your participation.

a reply to: edmc^2

I am, I've read most of his books, and some of his papers. However his books are Pop Sci, you can't even make it through that. By your own admission.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

If DNA is a computer code, then where is the software that runs it? Can you have a computer code without software?

Program software requires code to work. I think the best analogy of software is DNA polymerase, ribosomes, tRNA and the many other required proteins for DNA replication and expression into proteins.

originally posted by: whereislogic

In a rational honest conversation, one plus one is two. In a philosophical debate with irrational illogical and unreasonable people, one plus one is sometimes not two, often supported by some elaborate philosophizing and twisting what is said.

Yeah, it is called genetic code until proponents of random generation realize this implies a coder. Phantom said multiple times that code does not require a coder, while she types in html code for her ATS post and uses a computer that would NEVER be able to self-assemble without an intelligent creator.

originally posted by: cooperton
Yeah, it is called genetic code until proponents of random generation realize this implies a coder.

To you, et al.

Doesn't mean that it is true.

a reply to: cooperton

Yeah, it is called genetic code until proponents of random generation realize this implies a coder.

Look up quines and self modifying code.

I know this is from a while back and the thread discussion has moved on, but ....

originally posted by: edmc^2 The fact is, there are many things science and nature can't explain. There are things in the world, in the universe that are beyond the grasps of science.

This is why, in the past and stil today, we have religion and a belief in a creator god. Because there are so many things we cannot explain. And humans by nature dont like that. They like answers. And god (and creationism) provides them.

However, we now know the real cause of thunder and lightning. It wasnt Zeus or Thor or YHWH after all. Who knows what me may also know in 100 or 1,000 years time?

a reply to: AndyMayhew

Minor quibble Jehovah is not a storm God Even in the polytheistic past of the Semitic peoples.

But I do agree and will add, who knows what we will know in ten years? Remember the turn of the 19th through to mid (ish) 20th century, people went through so many changes. We went from mostly horse and cart transport to cars, to flight, to space flight etc.

I love how people say "Science can't explain it, there for God", and while a Deity, many deities etc may be an explanation, it is not THE explanation.

a reply to: cooperton

Phantom said multiple times that code does not require a coder, while she types in html code for her ATS post and uses a computer that would NEVER be able to self-assemble without an intelligent creator.

Never is a big word. If I were to send code I'd generated by choosing the value of each bit with a fair coin toss, the odds of coding the message: 'Hi!', after tossing the coin 24 times would be about: .00000006% (not quite zero). If I were allowed about 20 billion tries, I'd probably get that message showing up somewhere at random though. If you don't put a limit on the number of trials, then you'll be able to push the odds as close to 100% as you'd like, no matter how hard it is to find what you're looking for (given unlimited attempts at coin tossing, the odds of getting a digital copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica by this method are practically 100% for instance).

Of course, just because random chance can lead to anything, doesn't mean everything must be attributed to random chance.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

You are being intellectually dishonest again. I've only ever sold myself as someone who understands biological evolution (the chemistry, biochemistry, genetics, and bioinformatics there of) . Beyond that as a scientist, I understand scientific method much better than the lay person.

You repeatedly post parts of quotes, to try and make an argument, rather than the entirety. Indeed you admit you could not finish Prof. Hawkins book, so why should your opinion matter? Its like reading chapter one of War and Peace and claiming it has all you need to know.

No. I'm not being "intellectually dishonest". Your participation in the discussion gave an impression that you're familiar with Prof. Hawkings writings and works. I guess not. I guess I'm asking the wrong person. My bad then.

As for the book, yes, I attempted to read the book in its entirety but failed to do so in the hopes of finding the answer to my question regarding the "creation" or the "spontaneous appearance" of the law of gravity. So what I did is use the Search tool in order to isolate the words law gravity. Alas 52 hits but no explanation of how it came to be. I've learned quite a lot though, of how the universe behaves and the laws that governed it. It's a fascinating book, I must say. It's a mishmash of different theories in order to arrive at a single theory (law of gravity) to explain how the universe came to be.

In any case, I guess thank you for your participation.

Perhaps this can clear up some of the confusion:

... from the terminology, it sounds like this may be a reference to Hartle and Hawking's no-boundary proposal.

In this scheme, they propose a method for computing what they refer to as the "wavefunction of the universe". This wavefunction uses Feynman's path integral to assign probability amplitudes to three-metrics on a three-surface ΣΣ bounding a Euclidean spacetime M. By analytic continuation, the wavefunction can be continued to a function representing a Lorentzian signature spacetime.

This approach is explained in Hawking's publicly available lecture. There he describes an explicit example where ΣΣ is a three-sphere and the Euclidean manifold M is a four-ball. "On the other side" of the bounding three-sphere ΣΣ is Lorentzian de Sitter space. This model is proposed as a model for a spontaneously created de Sitter universe, and he makes the statement

"Unlike the black hole pair creation, one couldn't say that the de Sitter universe was created out of field energy in a preexisting space. Instead, it would quite literally be created out of nothing: not just out of the vacuum, but out of absolutely nothing at all, because there is nothing outside the universe."

physics.stackexchange.com...

As for gravity...we don't yet know exactly where it starts. We have determined how it functions but not its source. The investigation is on going. Inb4 "finally, a gap we can cram god into so as to preserve our egocentric model of existence!"

A man said to the universe, "Sir, I exist."

"However," replied the universe, "that fact has not created in me a sense of obligation."

- Stephen Crane

a reply to: AndyMayhew

They like answers. And god (and creationism) provides them.

It answers nothing.
God did it, explains nothing about the "how" making God a useless answer for any real world applications or predictions.

Anyone could say "anything" did it, what knowledge have you gained.. Nothing.

a reply to: flyingfish

What makes you think they seek knowledge rather than comfort?

"It's ok. The Universe is here for you. Everything will be ok."

a reply to: Phage

"It's ok. The Universe is here for you. Everything will be ok."

"Thank God." *sniffles*

originally posted by: cooperton
Program software requires code to work. I think the best analogy of software is DNA polymerase, ribosomes, tRNA and the many other required proteins for DNA replication and expression into proteins.

Those are all physical mechanisms. Not software.

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: AndyMayhew

They like answers. And god (and creationism) provides them.

It answers nothing.
God did it, explains nothing about the "how" making God a useless answer for any real world applications or predictions.

Anyone could say "anything" did it, what knowledge have you gained.. Nothing.

it helps them sleep at night.
stupid people prefer the easy answer.

originally posted by: stinkelbaum

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: AndyMayhew

They like answers. And god (and creationism) provides them.

It answers nothing.
God did it, explains nothing about the "how" making God a useless answer for any real world applications or predictions.

Anyone could say "anything" did it, what knowledge have you gained.. Nothing.

it helps them sleep at night.
stupid people prefer the easy answer.

right. because it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in creation.