(224) Wed 26 Nov 97 2:46 By: Curtis Johnson To: Laurie Appleton Re: Creation Time Line (b) [1/2] St: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ @EID:6c82 237a15c0 @PID: BWMAX2 3.20 [Reg] @MSGID: 1:261/1000.0 347c847a @REPLY: 3:640/238@Fidonet 8cb4e258 >>> Part 1 of 2... -=> Quoting Laurie Appleton to Joseph Voigt <=- JV>> . . . if creationism is true, how it is possible to avoid a JV>> cause and effect dilemna which creationism demands... LA> Surely you are NOT claiming that evolution somehow avoids LA> any problem with "cause and effect"? What was the cause of LA> the Big Bang? JV> You didn't answer my question. LA> The above is your answer. IOW, you clearly concede that creationism does indeed have a "problem with `cause and effect'"! JV> Evolution does not avoid cause and effect, nor does the JV> Big Bang. LA> Then what was the CAUSE of the Big Bang? JV> Do you have -any- understanding at all of quantum JV> physics? LA> Those who claim to have an understanding of quantum LA> physics, usually show that they don't understand what they LA> are talking about! It does not seem to differ greatly from LA> the word used by magicians when they say ABRACADABRA!! Note that in the above, you "claim to have an under- standing of quantum physics," and so you probably "don't understand what [you] are talking about."! A beautiful debunking of yourself--unless maybe you care to explain in your own words, say, what are Pauli exclusion and virtual particle pair creation? When magicians work with "ABRACADABRA," do they do mathematics? Do they make falsifiable predictions? It is creationists that rely on "ABRACADABRA." JV> Now answer my question. LA> The words "Quantum fluctuation in a vacuum" and LA> ABRACADABRA have, for all practical purposes, the same LA> meaning! Dr. Henry Morris writes that LA> 'And what about the initial particle-sized universe? Two LA> of the originators of this concept have an answer: LA> "It is then tempting to go one step further and speculate LA> that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing." LA> Tryon conjectures: LA> " . . . .that our Universe had its physical origin LA> as a quantum fluctuation of some pre-existing true LA> vacuum, or state of nothingness." LA> 'Thus one's choice of cosmogonies finally boils down to the LA> following: Evolution ex nihilo or Creation ex Deo. The choice LA> used to be: "Eternal Matter" or "Eternal God." Now it has LA> become: "Omnipotent Nothingness" or "Omnipotent Creator."' LA> (Allan H. Guth and Paul J. Steinhardt, "The Inflationary LA> Universe," Scientific American, Vol. 250 (May 1984), p. 128. LA> Edward P. Tryon, op cit, p. 15. My reference in (Scientific LA> Creationism, Ed. Henry M Morris, Creation-Life Publishers, LA> 1985, p. 36) You're too lazy to turn a page and let us know where the Morris book said the Tryon piece appeared? We always knew your pretended scholarship was sloppy; now you can't even cite from a secondary source even when you literally hold it in your hands. Or maybe you don't even know what _op cit._ means? You and Morris count on a reader not having or looking up the actual piece you quote. As it turns out, I have that issue of _Scientific American_. It is a beautiful illustration of the difference between the approach of cosmologists and "Creation Scientists." This contrast shows that the latter indeed rely on nothing more than "ABRACADABRA," whereas real scientists above all *think.* Indeed, it's a fine review for the knowledgeable layman, much more in-depth than the usual popularizations. The context of the sentence fragment that the Morris book quoted is: "Recently there has been some serious speculation that the actual creation of the universe is describable by physical laws. In this view the universe would originate as a quantum fluctuation, starting from absolutely nothing." The authors caution that "Quantum fluctuations of the structure of space-time can be discussed only in the context of quantum gravity. . ." I omit the discussion of alternative structures of space-time compatible with an inflationary scenario. On the same page as the Morris quote, we find: >>> Continued to next message... --- Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] * Origin: Nerve Center - Where the spine is misaligned! (1:261/1000) SEEN-BY: 12/12 218/890 1001 270/101 353/250 396/1 3615/50 51 3804/180 @PATH: 261/1000 1137 270/101 396/1 3615/50 218/1001 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (225) Wed 26 Nov 97 15:21 By: Curtis Johnson To: Laurie Appleton Re: Creation Time Line (b) [2/2] St: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ @EID:6dc2 237a7aa0 @PID: BWMAX2 3.20 [Reg] @MSGID: 1:261/1000.0 347c847b @REPLY: 3:640/238@Fidonet 8cb4e258 >>> Part 2 of 2... "Under these circumstances the gravitational part of the energy is somewhat ill-defined, but crudely speaking one can say that the gravitational energy is negative, and that it precisely cancels the nongravitational energy. The total energy is then zero and is consistent with the evolution of the universe from nothing. If grand unified theories are correct in their prediction that baryon number is not conserved, there is no known conservation law that prevents the observed universe from evolving out of nothing." There, albeit oversimplified, is a scientific hypothesis for the origin of the universe. Now, in turn, can you tell us what is the "Creation Science" scientific hypothesis for the origin of the universe? (Note the _scientific_). Will you give us silence? Irrelevant blather? Or is it "And God said. . .ABRACADABRA!"? --- Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] * Origin: Nerve Center - Where the spine is misaligned! (1:261/1000) SEEN-BY: 12/12 218/890 1001 270/101 353/250 396/1 3615/50 51 3804/180 @PATH: 261/1000 1137 270/101 396/1 3615/50 218/1001