Posted on 03/05/2015 8:19:37 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Yesterday, a million dollars spontaneously created itself in my bank account. Hahahahahahaha.
You are confusing Biology ( Evolution) with Physics.
Stupidity.
If there is “nothing” then nothing can happen. “nothing” can not do anything.
There must be something, for anything to happen.
“spontaneously arising from nothing” means that nothing arose.
See St Thomas Aquinas.
Janet Yellen creates billions out of nothing every month.
How do you even define “nothing” without it becoming something?
An object at rest stays at rest, an object in motion stays in motion.
How did the universe come to exist without any outside influence?
The particle remained in this state for an undetermined period of time - check
Then nothing changed and nothing happened, which impelled the particle to explode in a fraction of an instant - check
The exploding particle simultaneously created the infinity of space, all celestial bodies, all background energy and time itself - check
Well okay then.
Question - Doesn't the scientific method require a theory to be testable and the tests to be repeatable?
It turns out that the Evolutionists (inanimate and biological ones) have for “their god” ... some processes that they invent out of their own heads and say that “this is how it happened”.
On the other hand, those of us who are Creationists and believe in the Word of God as inerrant and infallible, know that the moving force in creation and all life in the Universe is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Those on the other side have “great difficulty” believing either that there could even be a “God” or that He could simply speak creation into existence out of nothing prior to that, including all life.
They seem to have no problem believing their own INVENTED and OUTLANDISH processes as correct ... LOL ... they just CANNOT believe in God, because that carries along with it, other UNACCEPTABLE THINGS that they want nothing to do with ... so they come up with these INVENTED PROCESSES that make no further demands on them!
Abstract: An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given. In this paper, we present such a proof based on the analytic solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (WDWE). Explicit solutions of the WDWE for the special operator ordering factor p=-2 (or 4) show that, once a small true vacuum bubble is created by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum [my ephasis], it can expand exponentially no matter whether the bubble is closed, flat or open. The exponential expansion will end when the bubble becomes large and thus the early universe appears. With the de Broglie-Bohm quantum trajectory theory, we show explicitly that it is the quantum potential that plays the role of the cosmological constant and provides the power for the exponential expansion of the true vacuum bubble. So it is clear that the birth of the early universe completely depends on the quantum nature of the theory.
So you need a a small true vacuum bubble is created by quantum fluctuations. I'm not a quantum physicists, and it has been awhile since I took intro QM, but don't you need to have matter/energy to have quantum fluctuations?
Of course, we know that this is NO SCIENTIFIC PROCESS, but a lot of assumptions, built on top of current-day science that we do know about. We can test many things today, but going into the past for non-repeatable events, requires assumptions that STRAIN CREDULITY in and of itself, much less the bigger and overall processes that these people say result from these INCREDULOUS ASSUMPTIONS they make!
AT LEAST we have the inerrant and infallible “Word of God” from the “very being” ... who WAS THERE at the time and who has described it “first-hand” so that we could know what would be TOTALLY UNKNOWABLE outside of that revelation to us!
No, the two concepts are clearly delineated in the article.
Many people confuse evolution with adaptation. Basically, there are a lot of confused people out there.
“Doesn’t the scientific method require a theory to be testable and the tests to be repeatable?”
Sure, but scientists have shown themselves all too willing to dispense with the scientific method and plod ahead anyway.
“We” who oppose these ridiculous theories, invented out of nothing (i.e., the evolution of life and of creation itself) ... do have an issue which is similar.
God is the self-existent being who created everything and he is outside of time and matter, thereby not having been part of the creation of all things that we know now and having always been in existence - self-existant!
Now, that “just by itself” would be as much of a problem as these ridiculous theories that the other side invents — EXCEPT FOR — the fact that this self-existent God, actually came down to earth and condescended to becoming a human being, in order that he could show to mankind who this self-existent and all-powerful God is. Jesus came to not only provide SALVATION to the world, but also to show everyone WHO this self-existent being is, who has resided outside of his creation and has done so forever in the past, with no beginning and no end.
AT LEAST we have someone who can “talk to us” about it and “explain it to us” and having come in the form of a human being with power that no human being could have, in order to prove to the world, who he is. As he said, those who have seen him have seen the forever-existent and all-powerful God of the Universe.
You at least need a quantum field to have a quantum fluctuation and a quantum field is not nothing.
The problem here is not ONLY with the attitude of these scientists ... BUT ... the problem ALSO lies in the fact that one CANNOT subject a one-time historical event to “science”.
You can subject it to “scientific speculation” ... but speculation is all it is and not science. And then, whith such a historical event, there are always a lot of ASSUMPTIONS that these scientists make. They form assumptions in such a way as to support their primary thesis, which then goes on to build a “house of cards” built on nothing but pure speculation!
SO ... the point here is that it DOES REQUIRE some OBSERVATION in order to have some minimal understanding of what happened. Without some “observation” at the time it happened, you’re TOTALLY at the mercy of whatever the human mind can invent, no matter how much you attach the “word” science to it.
It’s the VERY NATURE of the thing — a historical event — that does not lend itself to “science”!
BUT ... if you take a certain amount of OBSERVATION and then attach some scientific processes to it, you stand a better chance of arriving at the truth. The KEY here is that you must have some degree of OBSERVATION to take off from!
The Bible does provide that minimal degree of observation, although it’s not broken down into minute measurements and minute details. It provides enough detail to get an “overall picture” of the event. From that, some attached “science” can do well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.