You`re still not imagining pre-big bang. What created the universe had to have been beyond the universe. We dont have to call it God, but whatever it was had to have just been "there" rather than something created. Otherwise we wouldn`t be here.
Using a loose example with numbers, we can say 10 comes from 9, which comes from 8, which comes from 7
All the way down to 1
Where does 1 come from?. From 0?. No. 0 is the perceived absence of 1.
1 comes from the very defining properties that make it 1. The very dimensions and physics that make 1 possible. Its abstraction.
Same thing when we backtrack in time to the beginning of the universe and beyond. We can invent stupid theories like magical branes playing galactic pinball, and bumping each other and creating universes, and stuff like that. But its not logical and does not solve the equation of itself even.
People are thinking in terms of 0, which is wrong.
How can you say this with a straight face without immediately asking yourself "What caused God?"
"Oh, he doesn't need a cause." I'm sure you'd retort. Why? How do you know? What makes you think you know what rules apply outside our universe?
Secondly, if there must be a first cause, what makes you think it's not the universe or multiverse?
Number of processes discovered in nature that require gods: 0.
Its not simple like that. Comparing it to a short and long walk is a bad example.
Macro evolution is more a group of bubbles/circles that form from and connect with each other. The branching of that, well, it can be anything and in any direction/format. Micro evolution is studying specific bubbles. Its reductionist yes, as you say macro evolution is simply lots of micro evolution added together. But the processes of Macro evolution and the study of that(As in, our current theory of human evolution), is where things go bad and things break because it doesn`t add up. Which means we simply have the macro part of it wrong. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Mutation_and_selection_diagram.svg/300px-Mutation_and_selection_diagram.svg.png
So using the very basic image above, Macro study would be of the lines
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Just no.
Its not simple like that. Comparing it to a short and long walk is a bad example.
It is that simple. It really is just that simple.
Micro-evolution is one, or a handful of mutations.
Macro-evolution is the above on a larger scale.
They're the same thing on different scales, as the name implies. It's literally (and I mean the literal definition of literally);
One step: micro evolution
Lots of steps: macro evolution
The terms really aren't mysterious. There's no hidden, separate-to-normal meaning behind "micro-" and "macro-" here.
There`s enough papers and scientific evidence why its wrong and broken. No one is going to be collecting nobel prizes for that. Easy to prove. Science already nails that bs.
Oh, really? So, in your opinion, why is evolution still used in medicine?
I told you. Write a paper, show how evolution is wrong, collect your irl-fame, instant nobel prize and enough money from grateful religious folk to last you a lifetime. "Oh I don't need the money!" then donate it.
Fact is; you can't.
"Yeah well you can't prove religion wrong either!"
Religion, like my pet invisible unicorn Eric, isn't falsifiable. And that's also a dodge.
6. Pardon me for saying this, but I love it when creationists try to use science to prove their claims, and end up getting the science completely wrong
Creationists can look retarded when they get their facts wrong. The same can be said about atheists. Like the guy you are quoting.
So then, How does Zero energy universe = the universe can create itself?. You dont read what you are copying/pasting, do you?. Neither does the atheist guy know what he thinks he is talking about.
What is meant by a Zero energy universe, is nothing more than the laws of thermodynamics and energy conservation. In simple terms, this means that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another(You know this). The net energy always remains the same(negative energy of a gravitational field balances it out). There is no gain or loss and so the sum of the two energies remains zero. As the article states, when the energy of the universe is considered from a pseudo-tensor point of view, Zero values are obtained in the resulting calculations.
Fact is , there is energy in the universe, not undefined , but it cant be anything more or less than what it is. But technically the equation of net energy in a system balances out to 0. At any given time is the total net energy of the universe zero?(aka unchanged), when you think about it, yeeeeees technically we can assume that.
Now, Why some obscure state of `Zero energy` before the big bang would not have made the universe possible:
Back to the big bang:
The laws of nature require that matter and antimatter be created in pairs. But within a millifraction of a second of the Big Bang, matter somehow outnumbered its particulate opposite by a hair, so that for every billion antiparticles, there were a billion and one particles. Within a second of the creation of the universe, all the antimatter was destroyed, leaving behind only matter. So far, physicists have not been able to identify the exact mechanism that would produce this apparent "asymmetry," or difference, between matter and antimatter to explain why all the matter wasn't also
destroyed.
What should clear things up for you
The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.
What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question
The hypothesis does not do away with God(If thats what you were mistakenly thinking?).
How did something – composed of equal positive and negative parts, mind you – come from nothing?
Physicists aren't exactly sure, but their best guess is that the extreme positive and negative quantities of energy randomly fluctuated into existence.
While I'll get back to the rest of your post in future, I want to call you out on this, because it's waffle and wrong.
The total net energy of the universe is not Zero and if that were the case we would not exist.
Non-sequitur.
Notice the word hypothesis by the way
The hypothesis is recent. You realise God is a hypothesis too, right?
But technically the equation of net energy in a system balances out to 0. At any given time is the total net energy of the universe zero?(aka unchanged), when you think about it, yeeeeees technically we can assume that.
So you agree with the zero-energy universe hypothesis then?
What should clear things up for you
You've not really said anything. The two prior paragraphs were merely a demonstration that you know what the hypothesis represents.
The hypothesis does not do away with God(If thats what you were mistakenly thinking?).
Science is neutral regarding the God hypothesis. However we're discussing science in the bible, and I maintain that there isn't any.
How did something – composed of equal positive and negative parts, mind you – come from nothing?
I don't know, but we can observe it. You don't get to invoke a creator just because a question is unanswered.
So then, How does Zero energy universe = the universe can create itself?
Focus; I won't participate in a Gish gallop. You said the creation of the universe violates thermodynamics. It doesn't.
What's your definition of 'evidence' here? 99% of our historical anything is eyewitness accounts. I think these exist for Jesus just as they do for Caesar. I don't think we have any 'physical', touchable evidence that Caesar existed (i.e. a piece of his body or such). I find myself agreeing with 95% of the things you've been saying the last 2-3 pages (except some historical details, but that's mostly semantics), but I am a bit puzzled by these statements.
Pretty simple. Mention the guy in more than one book.
No, really. This is why we can pass the resurrection of an entire city off as bullshit; because no contemporary historian (and yes, we do have works written by people in the area) mentions a such a noteworthy event.
Actually, I know more science than you think I know.
You already expressed a fundamental misunderstanding of big bang cosmology and thermodynamics. I'd wager you don't understand evolution too well either (though this is a guess, feel free to prove me wrong). There really aren't many other fields of science relevant to this debate.
0
How can you say this with a straight face without immediately asking yourself "What caused God?"
"Oh, he doesn't need a cause." I'm sure you'd retort. Why? How do you know? What makes you think you know what rules apply outside our universe?
Secondly, if there must be a first cause, what makes you think it's not the universe or multiverse?
Number of processes discovered in nature that require gods: 0.
0
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Just no.
Its not simple like that. Comparing it to a short and long walk is a bad example.
It is that simple. It really is just that simple.
Micro-evolution is one, or a handful of mutations.
Macro-evolution is the above on a larger scale.
They're the same thing on different scales, as the name implies. It's literally (and I mean the literal definition of literally);
One step: micro evolution
Lots of steps: macro evolution
The terms really aren't mysterious. There's no hidden, separate-to-normal meaning behind "micro-" and "macro-" here.
0
Macro evolution is to micro evolution what a long walk is to a short walk.
Macro evolution is simply lots of micro evolution added together.
You can't believe in micro evolution and reject macro evolution. That doesn't even physically make sense.
0
I told you, I'm a biochemist. I use evolution in genetics like an electrician uses electricity. It works. Fact.
Having you deny evolution to me is as absurd as you telling an electrician that electricity doesn't work.
You can't make vaccines out of gods.
0
Resorting to trolling shows the weakness of your arguments.
Evolution is a fact. There is nothing in the bible that couldn't be written by a bronze age priest. There is no evidence to support creationism.
Science will kill Christianity, as it is already doing because religion is for the unreasonable.
0
Nah but it shows a god isn't needed. Like everything else we've discovered about reality thus far.
0
Oh, really? So, in your opinion, why is evolution still used in medicine?
0
I told you. Write a paper, show how evolution is wrong, collect your irl-fame, instant nobel prize and enough money from grateful religious folk to last you a lifetime. "Oh I don't need the money!" then donate it.
Fact is; you can't.
"Yeah well you can't prove religion wrong either!"
Religion, like my pet invisible unicorn Eric, isn't falsifiable. And that's also a dodge.
0
While I'll get back to the rest of your post in future, I want to call you out on this, because it's waffle and wrong.
The total net energy of the universe is not Zero and if that were the case we would not exist.
Non-sequitur.
Notice the word hypothesis by the way
The hypothesis is recent. You realise God is a hypothesis too, right?
But technically the equation of net energy in a system balances out to 0. At any given time is the total net energy of the universe zero?(aka unchanged), when you think about it, yeeeeees technically we can assume that.
So you agree with the zero-energy universe hypothesis then?
What should clear things up for you
You've not really said anything. The two prior paragraphs were merely a demonstration that you know what the hypothesis represents.
The hypothesis does not do away with God(If thats what you were mistakenly thinking?).
Science is neutral regarding the God hypothesis. However we're discussing science in the bible, and I maintain that there isn't any.
How did something – composed of equal positive and negative parts, mind you – come from nothing?
I don't know, but we can observe it. You don't get to invoke a creator just because a question is unanswered.
So then, How does Zero energy universe = the universe can create itself?
Focus; I won't participate in a Gish gallop. You said the creation of the universe violates thermodynamics. It doesn't.
0
93% of the National Academy of Science (America's best scientists) are agnostic/atheist.
Your brightest minds are "retarded"? I'm not sure you thought that through.
0
No.
0
Pretty simple. Mention the guy in more than one book.
No, really. This is why we can pass the resurrection of an entire city off as bullshit; because no contemporary historian (and yes, we do have works written by people in the area) mentions a such a noteworthy event.
0
You already expressed a fundamental misunderstanding of big bang cosmology and thermodynamics. I'd wager you don't understand evolution too well either (though this is a guess, feel free to prove me wrong). There really aren't many other fields of science relevant to this debate.
0
I really don't see what that accomplished.
0
What evil are you talking about?