By natural processes, matter cannot be created or destroyed. No contrary case to this proposition has ever been observed.
The big bang happening with no starting materials creates matter from nothing, and is therefore a false theory.
The big bang with starting materials does not describe the origin of its starting materials and thus is an incomplete theory of the origin of life.
Evolution uses homology as evidence supporting the theory. Homology is not contrary to the theory that god created life; homology supports creationism. Some evolutionists claim that creationists are ignorant and refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution. Yet the evidence that supports evolution supports creationism simultaneously.
This is merely a collection of thoughts that I had one moment this morning.
Ahhhh, theism - what better motivation to imagine that one knows better than the world’s smartest scientists?
Everyone who lived in Hiroshima in the 40s (who you might now imagine is in heaven) could attest to how matter can vanish, and pure energy can take its place.
Incorrect, matter is transformed, not destroyed and replaced by new matter. Read an elementary physics or chemistry text book and do a little research before talking about such things.
There is a difference between trying to describe the origin of life in terms of physical principles and trying to explain it in terms of supernatural phenomenon. If the big bang claims that there are starting materials, but does not describe their origin, then it cannot fully account for the origin of the universe. Scientists talk about the big bang followed by evolution as being the source of life. Almost every single scientist dismisses the fact that the first starting materials could not have arisen by natural physical means. They fail to even mention them. It is a flaw in any non-creationist theory.
The origin of god is not a flaw in the creationist theory, because god is not a natural, physical entity, and thus it is not necessary, and verily impossible, to describe god in terms of physical principles.
As an undergrad, I majored at math and physics at the 3rd best university in the country. I should read a physics textbook?
It is not true that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Even in high school (even in high school!) they teach the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy… that matter can convert into energy. This is how atomic bombs work - by converting matter into energy.
Even the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy is technically false. There’s something offhandedly referred to as “the Heisenburg Loan Principle”, which dictates that the universe can steal a small amount of energy from nowhere (or the fabric of the universe, if you prefer), so long as it pays it back. The more energy stolen, the sooner the universe has to pay it back. There are actually important phenomena that rely upon this principle, including the evaporation and eventual death of black holes.
Last - “god” is a ridiculous idea. Seriously ridiculous. If you want the axioms of your existence to be faith in a book, I can’t argue with it - but if you’re going to post in a Philosophy forum, you should have some respect for logic and empiricism - and both logic and empiricism say that we have no just cause for belief in anything supernatural, including a god or gods.
Barring something interesting, this is my last post in this thread. “Here we go again” indeed - why did I get suckered into this?
There are plenty of ways to describe the universe pre-big bang, and plenty of non-creation theories address this point. Big Bang-Big Crunch models, colliding membrane models, any theory that treats time as a finite unbounded dimension. How can you accuse others of not having done research and then say “It is a flaw in any non-creationist theory”?
The funny thing is, twiffy is right. Which would make somebody else who said exactly what you said an arrogant douchebag.
You’re right. On tries, the other gives up.
You’re right.
Perhaps because that’s not a fact. And if your flaw is a real flaw, we’ll fix it. It doesn’t mean the whole theory should be thrown out, that we should give up something we could understand for something we cannot.
You’re right. The origin of god is not a flaw in the creationist theory, because god is not a natural physical entity. The existence of an unnatural, unphysical entity is the flaw.
