Man didn't evolve from fish or monkeys

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: 5StarOracle


As I am a hard polytheist, I do not believe any singular entity created the Universe. I believe that the an fhírinne ("order") arouse from the chaotic void, all by its lonesome.

I see...
So you believe in all things from nothing...
No cause that had an effect to cause all things to be...
It seems you have more faith than I do...
lol...
Also would you care to elaborate on how the void was chaotic while absent of anything?

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Perhaps as these are not Abrhamic concepts you don't understand. But, Chaos, is not nothing, it is simply a lack of order. Again you seem to be confusing my Indo-European religious tendencies, for Science. They are very different things. Again, I can't measure the cthonic forces that I am calling Chaos, or define what an fhirinne is in an equation, or a theory.

You are trying too hard to shoe horn the fact I am a Scientist by trade, into my faith. I'm part of a non revealed, mystery set of faiths. None of it is science. I am just much more able to keep my science out of my faith, and my faith out of my science, than you appear to be able to do. My faith has a tenant of An Fhírinne in aghaidh an tSaoil "the truth against the world". The overlap would be quite simply that, I am obliged to stand with truth, vs untruth, misconceptions, and other such things.

Given I've seen you post in a thread to "stop address the Christian bashing", it is very clear where you sit on this.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Which are not quantifiable and have no place in a thermodynamics discussion. You introduced the first law or thermodynamics to this, and that means we must use the rules that implicitly implies. Tell me have you ever taken a class in thermodynamics? You do not have to be able to derive the equations from first principals, but you need to have actually gotten your feet into the waters so to speak. If the answer is no, then this might be why you are missing the point. Thermodynamics is not known for it's qualitative nature

a reply to: Noinden

I have not introduced my faith...
It is the logical conclusion...
seeing as natural means are the contradiction, only supernatural means remain....
As nothing originates from nothing...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

You have introduced your faith. The moment you imply that the only way that energy can exist is from a supernatural agency (which you have referred to as God, and based on past comments you have had not liking "Christian bashing", it can thus be implied you hold faith of an Abrahamic nature, and thus God is Jehovah/Allah).

You keep missing that "supernatural means" are things you can not define with science, viz (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Where in that can thermodynamics be applied?

a reply to: Noinden

I'm talking about the singularity...
And how the energy needed cannot be attributed to natural means of origin in order for the singularity to occour...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

you're still going about this as if you have supplied proof that the energy was created. This is a violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. You have to produce evidence that supports your contention that the energy that comprised the singularity was created period. This energy always existed per the 1st law. All of the energy that was contained within that singularity still exists today, just in different forms. None of what you have posted is evidence in favor of that energy being created. By claiming that there was no natural way for it to arise all you are doing is side stepping the real problem, the fact that this energy has always been there. It was never created in the first place. If you want to dispute the physics, I'm all ears. But you have to do so with actual science and math to demonstrate why known laws of physics are incorrect.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Once again, you keep ignoring (because I am assuming you are capable of at least understanding the point I've made) the fact that you can not apply supernatural (ie non scientific) ideas such as deity to science. Its a Non Sequitur logical fallacy. As you introduced the first law of thermodynamics as "proof" you are obliged to only speak of things that an be quantified OR admit this is all gnosis, and thus unverifiable. Q E D

a reply to: peter vlar

The singularity was the origin therefore of all the energy and mass...
And thus has not always existed...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Proof? Do you have it? Again, you choose science as the vehicle to argue for Deity, thus you must follow those rules. You need proof.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Not quite. All energy in the entire universe was bound by gravity into a likely singularity. It wasn't the origin or creation point of matter and energy, just of what is currently known as our universe. This matter and energy has existed for infinity. It's really a moot point though because physicists are limited in the ability to see back to the point of the Big Bang, they can only say with a degree of veracity what has occurred after the first 3 minutes of the current Universe's existence. There's no way to know 100% that there was definitively a singularity.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Barcs

Natural means being exhausted only leaves supernatural means...
Period..

No. Natural means that it occurred without intelligent intervention.

natural - existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
"carrots contain a natural antiseptic that fights bacteria"

Stop making stuff up.

So you believe in all things from nothing...

Again, you are dishonestly claiming that things can come from nothing and that we must believe that if we don't believe in god. That's patently false. None of us believe that, not even you. But what would you say if somebody asked you for the origin of god? Obviously you'd say, "durrr, he's eternal". If you can say that, then I can say that energy is eternal. Sorry you can't apply the logic one way in one situation and then a 180 flip in the other. If energy requires an origin, then so does god. End of story. I'm sorry you are having trouble comprehending this, but that's as clear as I can state it without directly insulting you.

Stop trolling and make a real argument instead of assumptions on top of assumptions on top of fallacies without a single claim being backed up by evidence.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Noinden

I'm talking about the singularity...
And how the energy needed cannot be attributed to natural means of origin in order for the singularity to occour...

What exactly is the "singularity"? Is there a definition?

a reply to: Phantom423

I am sure it is being crafted by 5StarOracle right now

Ok in all seriousness, the "singularity" is not anything beyond an early (evidentually speaking) hypothesis. So no, there can be no definition.

a reply to: Barcs

"natural means"
The natural processes and said properties of the material world may be referred to as "natural means" So natural phenomena are caused by "natural means"...
Heh I'm not making stuff up...

a reply to: iterationzero

If you can't or won't recognize the differences in the etymological meaning, colloquial meaning, and biological meaning of evolution then you're just being purposely obtuse.

I am the contributor who insists on defining and carefully analysing those differences.

If I can't or won't recognize them, & c.

cool story bro

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Barcs

"natural means"
The natural processes and said properties of the material world may be referred to as "natural means" So natural phenomena are caused by "natural means"...
Heh I'm not making stuff up...

I think you're assuming that because the universe exists that it had to have a cause i.e. a god or gods who created it. But that's not necessarily true. In the quantum world, particles appear and disappear from "nothing". Radiation and nuclear decay are spontaneous events that have no "cause". The universe doesn't need a cause or a god to exist. This article briefly explains why a god or a cause isn't necessary: www.csicop.org...

An interesting discussion with Lawrence Krauss et al Science Refutes God. Also some interesting comments on Quora on the subject: www.quora.com...

a reply to: Phantom423

In the quantum world, particles appear and disappear from "nothing". Radiation and nuclear decay are spontaneous events that have no "cause". The universe doesn't need a cause or a god to exist.

You know nothing of quantum theory if you believe what you write about it.

Radiation aka nuclear decay also has a cause: scholar.google.com...

Even your own religion says the universe needs a cause to exist, it says the cause is a spontaneous explosion.

this is your god, or part of your trinity which includes your base instincts and cercops specificus

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Phantom423

In the quantum world, particles appear and disappear from "nothing". Radiation and nuclear decay are spontaneous events that have no "cause". The universe doesn't need a cause or a god to exist.

You know nothing of quantum theory if you believe what you write about it.

Radiation aka nuclear decay also has a cause: scholar.google.com...

Even your own religion says the universe needs a cause to exist, it says the cause is a spontaneous explosion.

this is your god, or part of your trinity which includes your base instincts and cercops specificus

And your point is....?