How can you believe in evolution?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.

According to my (limited) knowledge, I woulod think that this is a form of energy?

It isn't necessarily net energy.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.

According to my (limited) knowledge, I woulod think that this is a form of energy?

It isn't necessarily net energy.

But it is energy, nevertheless. Or am I wrong?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Yes, the big bang explains how all particles that make energy and matter began to enter their current state. There is some indication that dimension is associated with the same particles. This would indicate that the universe did not have an explosion somewhere in it, but that the universe exploded. This is all very interesting debate for a nerd like me, but I would like to bring up another important issue. The big bang theory does not state WHY or HOW the big bang happened, just THAT it happened. It has stayed in common use because it has been useful in continuing research. Asking how and why to try and dismantle the theory doesn't really apply here.

What made it happen? Maybe it was god. Maybe it was something that happened in a parallel universe that follows different rules than ours.

As for evolution and spontaneous biological generation, they sound much more plausible when you add more finicky details to the explanation. Much unlike when women explain why they lust for Eddy Cullen.

Things like this 4-manifold would form all the time in a quantum vacuum.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

But it is energy, nevertheless. Or am I wrong?

It's energy. What's your point?

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

But it is energy, nevertheless. Or am I wrong?

It's energy. What's your point?

And energy, if not eternal, must be created by something, either naturally from another substance or by a designer, right?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

And energy, if not eternal, must be created by something, either naturally from another substance or by a designer, right?

This energy pops into and out of existence without cause. It just does so in a way that doesn't violate energy conservation.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

And energy, if not eternal, must be created by something, either naturally from another substance or by a designer, right?

This energy pops into and out of existence without cause. It just does so in a way that doesn't violate energy conservation.

So energy becomes nothing, and then comes back into being? Well, but the energy must exist first, for it to become non-existent. And what caused it to come into existence?

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

And energy, if not eternal, must be created by something, either naturally from another substance or by a designer, right?

This energy pops into and out of existence without cause. It just does so in a way that doesn't violate energy conservation.

So energy becomes nothing, and then comes back into being? Well, but the energy must exist first, for it to become non-existent. And what caused it to come into existence?

And energy, if not eternal, must be created by something, either naturally from another substance or by a designer, right?

This energy pops into and out of existence without cause. It just does so in a way that doesn't violate energy conservation.

So energy becomes nothing, and then comes back into being? Well, but the energy must exist first, for it to become non-existent. And what caused it to come into existence initially?

Or do you mean that energy just "creates" itself?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

So energy becomes nothing, and then comes back into being? Well, but the energy must exist first, for it to become non-existent. And what caused it to come into existence?

This energy pops into and out of existence without rhyme or reason. That's the nature of quantum fluctuations in vacuum. And as strange as it seems, things like the Casimir effect show it to be real.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

So energy becomes nothing, and then comes back into being? Well, but the energy must exist first, for it to become non-existent. And what caused it to come into existence?

This energy pops into and out of existence without rhyme or reason. That's the nature of quantum fluctuations in vacuum. And as strange as it seems, things like the Casimir effect show it to be real.

And if you ask me, it is not strange with a transcendent designer.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

And if you ask me, it is not strange with a transcendent designer.

I just don't see the need, but oh well.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

And if you ask me, it is not strange with a transcendent designer.

I just don't see the need, but oh well.

I thought everyone ought to know that every reaction needs to have an action first.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I thought everyone ought to know that every reaction needs to have an action first.

Well, that's the way we want things to be, but nature doesn't care about what we want.

[DaWoad]

3. How? Matter cannot be created, nor destroyed. Space is made up of matter, albeit "dark matter" which we still don't know much about. How is it creating more of itself to create space, if it goes against it's own rule we set in place?

Incorrect, matter very much can be created and destroyed . . .it does so by becoming a different type of energy. Energy, on the other hand, cannot be created or destroyed but can only change form.

[DaWoad]

And if you ask me, it is not strange with a transcendent designer.

I just don't see the need, but oh well.

I thought everyone ought to know that every reaction needs to have an action first.

every reaction doesn't need an action first.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Incorrect, matter very much can be created and destroyed . . .it does so by becoming a deifferent type of energy. Energy, on the other hand, cannot be created or destroyed but can only change form.

No, net energy can't change in the universe. Positive energy can increase or decrease so long as negative energy does the same in an equal amount.

[DaWoad]

Incorrect, matter very much can be created and destroyed . . .it does so by becoming a deifferent type of energy. Energy, on the other hand, cannot be created or destroyed but can only change form.

No, net energy can't change in the universe. Positive energy can increase or decrease so long as negative energy does the same in an equal amount.

*nods* yep this.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

And if you ask me, it is not strange with a transcendent designer.

I just don't see the need, but oh well.

I thought everyone ought to know that every reaction needs to have an action first.

every reaction doesn't need an action first.

The wall will fall down even if everything else in existence had not been moving?

[DaWoad]

And if you ask me, it is not strange with a transcendent designer.

I just don't see the need, but oh well.

I thought everyone ought to know that every reaction needs to have an action first.

every reaction doesn't need an action first.

The wall will fall down even if everything else in existence had not been moving?

if nothing in existence was moving there would be no wall just a very tiny pile of particles.

now the "prime mover" argument is a poor one for three simple reasons
1- Quantum physics suggests that energy can come into existence where there was nothing before
2- One must either grant that a "prime mover" would have to have "always existed" (how does that work BTW? I mean god just always existed exactly the way he/she/it/w/e is right now? man he/she/it w/e must be Really bored) which leads (logically) to the assumption that anything can exists in perpetuity in which case no prime mover is needed.
3-Lack of evidence. There is evidence for the big bang occurring and a variety of scientific theories as to how that happened what there isn't is any evidence for a prime mover anywhere in the works.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

And if you ask me, it is not strange with a transcendent designer.

I just don't see the need, but oh well.

I thought everyone ought to know that every reaction needs to have an action first.

every reaction doesn't need an action first.

The wall will fall down even if everything else in existence had not been moving?

if nothing in existence was moving there would be no wall just a very tiny pile of particles.

now the "prime mover" argument is a poor one for three simple reasons
1- Quantum physics suggests that energy can come into existence where there was nothing before
2- One must either grant that a "prime mover" would have to have "always existed" (how does that work BTW? I mean god just always existed exactly the way he/she/it/w/e is right now? man he/she/it w/e must be Really bored) which leads (logically) to the assumption that anything can exists in perpetuity in which case no prime mover is needed.
3-Lack of evidence. There is evidence for the big bang occurring and a variety of scientific theories as to how that happened what there isn't is any evidence for a prime mover anywhere in the works.

Perhaps the very fact that you cannot find the cause of "energy appearing and disappearing" through the means of science and reason would be evidence, or at least could be interpreted as, the existence of a transcendent being who/which is not bound by the laws of nature in this world.

[DaWoad]

And if you ask me, it is not strange with a transcendent designer.

I just don't see the need, but oh well.

I thought everyone ought to know that every reaction needs to have an action first.

every reaction doesn't need an action first.

The wall will fall down even if everything else in existence had not been moving?

if nothing in existence was moving there would be no wall just a very tiny pile of particles.

now the "prime mover" argument is a poor one for three simple reasons
1- Quantum physics suggests that energy can come into existence where there was nothing before
2- One must either grant that a "prime mover" would have to have "always existed" (how does that work BTW? I mean god just always existed exactly the way he/she/it/w/e is right now? man he/she/it w/e must be Really bored) which leads (logically) to the assumption that anything can exists in perpetuity in which case no prime mover is needed.
3-Lack of evidence. There is evidence for the big bang occurring and a variety of scientific theories as to how that happened what there isn't is any evidence for a prime mover anywhere in the works.

Perhaps the very fact that you cannot find the cause of "energy appearing and disappearing" through the means of science and reason would be evidence, or at least could be interpreted as, the existence of a transcendent being who/which is not bound by the laws of nature in this world.

switching to god of the gaps? that's just weak. Yes I mean I could decide that because we have no understanding of the *coughs* mechanics of Quantum mechanics we could just say "it's god!" and leave it at that. Thing is it almost positively isn't. Just because we don't have an explanation for something right now doesn't suggest that there isn't one or that a "supernatural influence" is required . . .it just suggests that we don't have one right now. We (scientists not me personally . . .not my field) will keep working at it until we get one . . .which we almost certainly will. . . and then we'll move on to another of the gaps that you would like us to fill with God.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

And if you ask me, it is not strange with a transcendent designer.

I just don't see the need, but oh well.

I thought everyone ought to know that every reaction needs to have an action first.

every reaction doesn't need an action first.

The wall will fall down even if everything else in existence had not been moving?

if nothing in existence was moving there would be no wall just a very tiny pile of particles.

now the "prime mover" argument is a poor one for three simple reasons
1- Quantum physics suggests that energy can come into existence where there was nothing before
2- One must either grant that a "prime mover" would have to have "always existed" (how does that work BTW? I mean god just always existed exactly the way he/she/it/w/e is right now? man he/she/it w/e must be Really bored) which leads (logically) to the assumption that anything can exists in perpetuity in which case no prime mover is needed.
3-Lack of evidence. There is evidence for the big bang occurring and a variety of scientific theories as to how that happened what there isn't is any evidence for a prime mover anywhere in the works.

Perhaps the very fact that you cannot find the cause of "energy appearing and disappearing" through the means of science and reason would be evidence, or at least could be interpreted as, the existence of a transcendent being who/which is not bound by the laws of nature in this world.

switching to god of the gaps? that's just weak. Yes I mean I could decide that because we have no understanding of the *coughs* mechanics of Quantum mechanics we could just say "it's god!" and leave it at that. Thing is it almost positively isn't. Just because we don't have an explanation for something right now doesn't suggest that there isn't one or that a "supernatural influence" is required . . .it just suggests that we don't have one right now. We (scientists not me personally . . .not my field) will keep working at it until we get one . . .which we almost certainly will. . . and then we'll move on to another of the gaps that you would like us to fill with God.

It sounds far better than "not everything needs a cause" of the gaps.

[El Nuevo Mexico]

Even so, if you believe in Evolution, 9/10 times you're going to believe in the Big Bang. Other than that, yeah they're two different theories. One deals with change over time, which is a fact. Speices change overtime. However, species do not change into another. Dogs have stayed dogs, and humans have stayed humans for all observable history. The big bang theory is founded on the idea that a massive explosive spread highly condensed matter across the universe, thus creating the universe, basically. While both ideas lack in general evidence, evolution is a fact, as evolution is only change over time. The THEORY OF evolution is something entirely different.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

It sounds far better than "not everything needs a cause" of the gaps.

Why must everything have a cause? Just because humans find that personally comforting as agent-seeking organisms?

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

It sounds far better than "not everything needs a cause" of the gaps.

Why must everything have a cause? Just because humans find that personally comforting as agent-seeking organisms?

Why can't everything have a cause? Just because humans want to rule divine agents out forever?