Evolution is Unscientific

RJM said:
Perhaps the universe did not assemble itself by blind chance? Do you accept the possibility exists?
Click to expand...
Most probably it arose out of 'absolute nothing'.
RJM said:
Man cannot comprehend a ten-trillionth of a single living cell of a single blade of grass, yet in the absence of some superior alien species regards himself as the highest intelligence in the known universe?
Click to expand...
Chemistry. It happens by itself.
 
But there are no "different" meanings of "nothing." Nothing means "not, zip, zilch, zero, nada, vacuum, emptiness, non-material"

If there are alternate "meanings of nothing" to a scientist, then like the meaning of infinity it has been corrupted in order to entertain fanciful imaginings. Just as nothing can be added to infinity, no thing can be taken away from nothing. Something cannot come from nothing.

The singularity is infinity, not nothing.
 
juantoo3 said:
Nothing means "not, zip, zilch, zero, nada, vacuum, emptiness, non-material"
Click to expand...
But a hole in the ground isn't nothingness -- it is a hole? A void is a void and a vacuum is a vacuum? They exist.

Nothing isn't the opposite or absence of any quality. Nothing just doesn't exist? Nothing cannot originate anything at all. Something can only come from something.

An invisible pink unicorn or a flying teapot are not nothing -- they are mental and philosophical concepts -- they have qualities. They can be considered and discussed.

Nothing has no properties or qualities, imo
Aupmanyav said:
Universe has not studied Laws of Thermodynamics. It does what it desires.
Click to expand...
Not sure where this goes?
.
 
Last edited:
RJM said:
But a hole in the ground isn't nothingness -- it is a hole? A void is a void and a vacuum is a vacuum? They exist.

Nothing isn't the opposite or absence of any quality. Nothing just doesn't exist? Nothing cannot originate anything at all. Something can only come from something.

An invisible pink unicorn or a flying teapot are not nothing -- they are mental and philosophical concepts -- they have qualities. They can be considered and discussed.

Nothing has no properties or qualities, imo

Not sure where this goes?
.
Click to expand...
If a hole in the ground is 12 inches by 12 inches by 12 inches, how much dirt is in the hole?




Wait for it.....




None.



In the context we have been discussing, the "nothing from which all came," the singularity was composed of all that the universe is...or so says current conventional scientific wisdom. "All" is infinite. "Nothing" is empty, devoid of any portion of the "all."

Playing fast and loose with the math or verbiage doesn't change that.
 
RJM said:
But a hole in the ground isn't nothingness -- it is a hole? A void is a void and a vacuum is a vacuum? They exist.
Click to expand...
Show me zero. Demonstrate that number for me, if you would be so kind, please?


RJM said:
Nothing cannot originate anything at all. Something can only come from something.
Click to expand...
I believe I said that.

RJM said:
An invisible pink unicorn or a flying teapot are not nothing -- they are mental and philosophical concepts -- they have qualities. They can be considered and discussed.
Click to expand...
There are those who ascribe projecting thoughts as "things." I'm not prepared to go there.

RJM said:
Nothing has no properties or qualities, imo
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
juantoo3 said:
Show me zero. Demonstrate that number for me, if you would be so kind, please?



I believe I said that.


There are those who ascribe projecting thoughts as "things." I'm not prepared to go there.


Exactly.
Click to expand...
Ok. But the 'universe from nothing' physics model uses a 'nothing' with properties -- opposite virtual particles and antiparticles popping into existence (space) and then mutually anhillating (time) -- so the nothingness proposed is more like a void where spacetime and physics laws still operate.

It's not nothing. It's an abuse of terms and of ordinary common sense, imo
 
Last edited:
RJM said:
...so the nothingness proposed is more like a void where spacetime and physics laws still operate.

It's not nothing. It's an abuse of terms and of ordinary common stnse, imo
Click to expand...
That totally contradicts what I've read of the matter. It is at the singularity where spacetime and physics go haywire. I don't recall details, I do recall we can't get back to the zero hour. Mathmatically they've gotten to a tiny fraction of a second, but they cannot see before the BANG. Pretty sure it was Stephen Hawking did a lot of work on this.
 
RJM said:
Nothing has no properties or qualities, imo

Not sure where this goes?
Click to expand...
Nothing perhaps contains more than what we visualize. IMHO, we still have to understand it.

That universe has its own ways. Are you sure that the three Laws of Thermodynamics apply in all conditions?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Aupmanyav said:
Nothing perhaps contains more than what we visualize. IMHO, we still have to understand it.
Click to expand...
No that's the point. Nothing can't CONTAIN or emit anything. It can't be visualized. There's nothing to understand. It's non-existent. It's not a hole in spacetime, or a void, or a vacuum, or the absence or opposite of any quality or state, imo

It's a (deliberately) disingenuous use of the word by Lawrence Krause and De Grasse Tyson and other popular tub-thumping new atheist scientists, imo

They're not being honest with the public.

What they're talking about is a void or dormant timespace condition where vaccum energy virtual particles and quantum laws still operate.
 
Last edited:
Aupmanyav said:
The universe does play dice. One never knows when a huge meteorite will smash the earth and create a second moon.
Click to expand...
When a huge meteorite stops at a red light and makes a left turn in traffic, *then* you could say the universe plays dice.

Falling along a predictable arc governed by the Laws of Nature (including Thermodynamics) is not playing dice. That is what Einstein was trying to get across.

Given all the variables are identical in every respect, the outcome is predictable. Allowing for variances in time and space (gravity wells, time eddys, worm holes, tears in the fabric of space, etc), what happens here happens the same way there. Always. That is called Natural Law.
 
Last edited:
juantoo3 said:
That is what Einstein was trying to get across.

Given all the variables are identical in every respect, the outcome is predictable.
Click to expand...
And it's where Einstein was wrong, regarding quantum uncertainty. He spent his last years trying to disprove it, without success.

The quantum world does not follow the same laws as classical mechanics. Schrödinger's cat
 
Last edited:
RJM said:
They're not being honest with the public.
What they're talking about is a void or dormant timespace condition where vaccum energy virtual particles and quantum laws still operate.
Click to expand...
That does not solve the problem 'Why things exist at all?"
 
Aupmanyav said:
Universe has not studied Laws of Thermodynamics. It does what it desires.
Click to expand...
Do you realize the religious methodology behind this statement?

It also implies the universe can think and direct fundamental forces. Politely, I disagree. The Moon continues to orbit the Earth, the Earth continues to orbit the Sun, the Sun continues its dance among the cloud of stars that compose the Milky Way Galaxy. No planet, no star, stops dead in its tracks and goes off in another direction (without external physical forces causing it to do so). Stars are born, age, live and eventually die. Some of those deaths are cataclysmic, some deaths are a gradual fading away, and sometimes stars collide or are consumed by a black hole...all according to Natural Law. There is nothing exceptional about any of these, they are the way it is.
 
RJM said:
And it's where Einstein was wrong, regarding quantum uncertainty. He spent his last years trying to disprove it, without success.

The quantum world does not follow the same laws as classical mechanics. Schrödinger's cat
Click to expand...
I can't help but think much of Quantum Uncertainty is, politely, hogwash. It is mathematical gymnastics.

Allowing that we are by necessity confined to the conditions surrounding our Planet, what was found in supercolliders regarding the various quarks over time became better understood, even predictable. The novelty has worn off. A top quark does not behave in the same way a strange quark behaves.

Further, what of Neutrinos? Not energy, not matter, and can pass through dense matter without slowing down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top