DaGeo's flood of "proofs and evidence for creation"

[DaGeo]

But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero.

What a silly argument. For the total energy to be zero...there has to be energy on both sides of the equation.

All they have is conjectures and refutations and conjectures and refutations

 

[rossum]

For the total energy to be zero...there has to be energy on both sides of the equation.

Which is what Hawking explained. There is negative potential in the separation of masses in the universe: e + -e = 0. You need to expend energy against gravity to carry a ball up a flight of stairs. That energy is potential energy in the ball. Drop the ball from the top of the stairs and that potential energy is expended.

There is a huge amount of negative potential energy in massive galaxies separated by billions of light years against their mutual gravity.

 

[DaGeo]

No need for any god to explain the goldilocks position of Earth when you consider the billions of planets just in our galaxy, and then consider the trillions of galaxies there are. Mere chance says that there should be a *lot* of planets in the goldilocks zone.

Please don't respond with, "but the odds of us finding ourselves on a goldilocks planet are still infinitesimal!" Any planet with organisms capable of asking that question *has* to be in the goldilocks zone, by definition of what the goldilocks zone is.

Now we has a talking Mr “Mere Chance” ???????????

 

[rossum]

Now we has a talking Mr “Mere Chance” ???????????

You need to study what the Anthropic Principle is. Ask yourself why there is no life on the surface of the sun and you might begin to get an idea.

 

[CrowCross]

Which is what Hawking explained. There is negative potential in the separation of masses in the universe: e + -e = 0. You need to expend energy against gravity to carry a ball up a flight of stairs. That energy is potential energy in the ball. Drop the ball from the top of the stairs and that potential energy is expended.

There is a huge amount of negative potential energy in massive galaxies separated by billions of light years against their mutual gravity.

It's still energy. Because it equals zero when both sides are added together doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Between the Earth and Sun there is what is called the Lagrange point. Even though the gravity equals zero at that point...there is still gravity on either side of the Lagrange point.

La Grange....
A haw, haw, haw, haw, a haw
A haw, haw, haw

 

[Temujin]

Not switching goal post....just presenting more of them.

Actually, as all your skittles are knocked down, you are reracking and replacing them with others, all equally hopeless and doomed to be knocked down again.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Now we has a talking Mr “Mere Chance” ???????????

Probability and chance is a perfectly sound scientific/mathematical concept.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Setting aside the well established goldilocks argument for creation...you moved into another arena...stars.

How did all those stars fit into something into a Planck size singularity?

AFAIK, "Planck size" and "singularity" are mutually contradictory, so I don't know how to interpret what you're saying, but my understanding is that cosmologists have a good handle on how all the matter in the universe was contained within something that was the Planck size.

Then we still need to go yet another step back...where did the stuff in the singularity come from? It's pretty obvious it didn't self create.

Cosmology has not concluded that the universe did not self-create. AFAIK, cosmology has not concluded *anything* about the creation of the universe. They're working on it. And, pretty obvious ≠ science.

 

[DaGeo]

So does

Probability and chance is a perfectly sound scientific/mathematical concept.

Just to be clear, does chance “say” things?

 

[Gus Bovona]

So does

Just to be clear, does chance “say” things?

Do you mean literally say or colloquially say?

 

[DaGeo]

Probability and chance is a perfectly sound scientific/mathematical concept.

Just to be clear.
In your preceding post you personified chance as if to imply it has the power to communicate things, now you’ve combined chance with probability and have called attention to their conceptualization.
Are you amending or expounding or something else?

 

[DaGeo]

Actually, as all your skittles are knocked down, you are reracking and replacing them with others, all equally hopeless and doomed to be knocked down again.

There it is, the Temujin’s classic hope so/cycle Get one now before they all sell out ?????

 

[DaGeo]

Do you mean literally say or colloquially say?

I merely repeated what you said earlier.
You don’t know what you mean either
Ok, that’s fine

 

[DaGeo]

You need to study what the Anthropic Principle is. Ask yourself why there is no life on the surface of the sun and you might begin to get an idea.

Oh yes?The Anthropic Principle
?I LOVE IT?
But if you really understood it, you wouldn’t like it—-aaaaaaat all!! ?
Too much precision in it for a hoaxy evolution myth model like yours.

However, the Anthropic Principal is fantastically fine with the Creation Model.

Ain’t nutin’ orderly or precise about your spasmodic evolution myth model.
But then again, maybe you can forge a “random-order” inter-joining schisma for it?????? to make it fit??

 

[Gus Bovona]

I merely repeated what you said earlier.

What post, exactly? Please quote the one you’re referring to.

 

[TeabagSalad]

Oh yes?The Anthropic Principle
?I LOVE IT?
But if you really understood it, you wouldn’t like it—-aaaaaaat all!! ?
Too much precision in it for a hoaxy evolution myth model like yours.

However, the Anthropic Principal is fantastically fine with the Creation Model.

Ain’t nutin’ orderly or precise about your spasmodic evolution myth model.
But then again, maybe you can forge a “random-order” inter-joining schisma for it?????? to make it fit??

Hmm. You appear to be a little , Edit per mod are you sure you're OK?

 

[CrowCross]

AFAIK, "Planck size" and "singularity" are mutually contradictory, so I don't know how to interpret what you're saying, but my understanding is that cosmologists have a good handle on how all the matter in the universe was contained within something that was the Planck size.

...cosmologists have a good handle...Your cosmology is based upon faith of cosmologist getting it right. Do you know how much the cosmoogist got wrong and were corrected by the Voyager spacecraft during the 2 flybys?

Cosmology has not concluded that the universe did not self-create. AFAIK, cosmology has not concluded *anything* about the creation of the universe. They're working on it. And, pretty obvious ≠ science.

It's obvious all that is in the universe...was confined to a microscopic dot?

 

[Temujin]

It's obvious all that is in the universe...was confined to a microscopic dot?

Microscopic dot? Are you suggesting that the difference in size between a tennis ball and the Milky Way galaxy is insignificant? Microscopic dot covers many things from a small Amoeba to a singularity.

 

[CrowCross]

Microscopic dot? Are you suggesting that the difference in size between a tennis ball and the Milky Way galaxy is insignificant? Microscopic dot covers many things from a small Amoeba to a singularity.

So what? When the BB'ers run the clock backwards....they come to a very small space with "all" in it.

Where did the "all" come from?

 

[Temujin]

So what? When the BB'ers run the clock backwards....they come to a very small space with "all" in it.

Where did the "all" come from?

The very small space. As physics as we know it breaks down in "a very small space", that's all we can be sure of. There are plenty hypotheses out there.