Summations Only

I would propose a little side thought that I believe will aid to the main discussion here. Note how Scott and a good many others exclude any discussions in the scientific arena, and will usually turn them away at the door, regarding the possibility of the universe having a supernatural cause. They protest that because something supernatural can never be tested scientifically then therefore it has no place in science. This may come as a shock coming from a YEC, but I agree. The supernatural has no place in science discussions.However that being said I would point out that the term "supernatural" means beyond nature. Today most view the term to regard anything that is beyond what is physically possible. Many YEC's however inadvertently employ use of the term to discuss an entity that is at the highest possible end of what "is" possible...meaning God. But look at this in other areas for example to see what I am talking about. We would not normally refer to the fastest runner ever in the Olympics, as a "supernatural" runner. We would instead call him a "supreme" runner. Meaning that he was the fastest "possible" runner, not a runner with powers beyond what is possible.Likewise I suggest that in referring to God, rather than getting turned away at the door, we reference Him as the "supreme" being and not a "supernatural" being. That is to say that God is at the highest end of what is possible, and not some mythical entity that is beyond what is possible. This therefore does NOT exclude examination of the scientific evidence for the possibility of an intelligent designer, and or special creation. And it removes the punch-line to the good old "flying spaghetti monster" joke.

So are you saying here that you believe that a naturally created universe is possible based on the casimir experiments? If this is the case I was wondering how you get around the problem of needing the perimeters (such as the two metal plates in a vacuum) to be in place in order to have a quantum fluctuation? That's a real chicken and egg problem in itself. Secondly, how do you have a zero point of energy fluctuate into existence in a quantized universe where nothing can exist smaller than a Planck? There would be no time/space to have a vacuum, and thus no particle pair productions. Without which there would be no quantum fluctuations. And finally, how do you explain the "creation" of new particles in a universe governed by the law of conservation of energy? It seems to me that at the very most we are only seeing some yet unexplained conversion of energy in the casimir experiments. Not the creation of completely new particles.

Hmmm... I'm not sure what post you read but of the two mentioned I did address the most popular one of quantum fluctuations. You seemed to be dismayed by the fact that he hadn't gone into any detail as to why they don't work, and I was merely trying to address this. So I appologize if I in anyway misinterpreted what you meant.

I'm sorry to inform you that you are mistaken. I asked how you would get around the problem of needing the parameters (such as the two metal plates in a vacuum) to be in place in order to have a quantum fluctuation? I would never ask "where the metal plates for generating the fluctuations for the Big Bang would come from." That would be stupid. My question is posed around this thought process.Since the quantum fluctuations observed in the casimir experiments require certain parameters in order to "fluctuate" (such as the metal plates), then this therefore would logically require some sort of universes parameters to exist in order to have a quantum fluctuation. Thus the chicken egg dilemma. You need the parameters to create the universe... but wait you need the universe to set up the parameters.

Lol. Oh, oh... I got this... are you ready?...yes they do.Edited by Just being real, : No reason given.

So what is it exactly that makes this "belief" any more valid than your typical run of the mill creationist? Also this still doesn't answer the question. Some sort of universes parameters are needed to have a fluctuation and yet you need the fluctuation in order to have a universe to have the parameters. Which came first? Then you still have to solve the problem of how anything could have occurred to begin with. Since most physicists tell us the universe is quantized and nothing smaller than a planck can theoretically exist. This is a problem trying to have a zero point of energy fluctuate where there is no "where" to fluctuate. There was no time or space.And finally, if we are really observing new particles form in the casimir experiments then you've got to trash the entire law of conservation of energy which says this is impossible. In a closed system energy can not be created or destroyed... it can only be converted. That means at the very most we are merely seeing some yet unexplained conversion process... not the creation of completely new particles from nothing.Edited by Just being real, : No reason given.

So are you trying to say there is some other process we have "observed" that indicates how we might get something from nothing? Because the casimir effect is the only one I've heard of.

Ummm... the same thing his response of "no they don't" accomplishes. Absolutely nothing. And that was the only point I was making. Edited by Just being real, : No reason given.

No my skepticism isn't that a phenomenon is being observed. My skepticism is the interpretations being tagged to those observations. The interpretation is that new photons are being created from nothing and therefore this could explain where the universe came from. Again we don't know that the phenomenon is happening everywhere. Since the only place we can detect it is between the uncharged conductive metal plates in a vacuum, then how do we know that it is not a result of those conditions? Next, most physicists tell us that nothing can theoretically exist smaller than a planck. So when you wind everything backwards to a time when it was the size of a zero point of energy, you have no space left for a quantum fluctuation to occur.And finally, if the casimir effect is truly the creation of new photons from nothing, then you must completely throw out the law of conservation of energy which makes this an impossible event. Personally I think that the casimir effect is some unexplained conversion process taking place, not the creation of new particles from nothing.

How about you provide me with just one example where the phenomena has been observed apart from the parameters of the universe, and I'll withdraw my comment. Otherwise I cite them all as proof.

Yes and thats the point. Quantum fluctuations are only known to occur within space that already exists. How would the first universe-generating fluctuation occur without space? And how could that space be there without a universe already in place? Therefore we have only observed (for lack of a better term) quantum fluctuations occur within universal perameters. You asked from proof of that statement. I pointed to all quantum fluctuation experiments ever conducted as that proof Jon. I can say that because they all occured within our current space time universe.

You sure have a way of straining at a gnat but yet ignoring the camel, don’t you? Look, my skepticism to whether or not they occur everywhere all the time is inconsequential to the paramount problem of quantum fluctuations only being observed taking place within the parameters of this universe’s already existing time and space. A luxury that the fluctuation which hypothetically created the universe would not have had.

Is the computer in front of you a natural cause? Or is it an intelligent cause? What about a bird's nest? Natural or intelligent? How about drift wood lined out on the beach of an island that spells "Marooned Please Send Help" ? The materials are all natural forming but are their specified arrangements natural or intelligent? Obviously the correct answer here is intelligent. Thus every effect ever encountered has not been the result of a natural cause. This means the rest of your house built upon the sinking sands of this faulty premise is doomed to collapse my friend. How can it have passed anything? It is completely untestable. Unless you know of a way to leave time and space and run tests that I'm unaware of. All quantum fluctuations ever detected have occurred in time and space. In order for one to happen outside of time and space it would have to first be capable of creating its own time and space to fluctuate in to. We have no observations to suggest this is even a possibility. Virtual particles are produced from space-time not from nothing. Not to even mention the fact that all of this assumes the pre-existence of the laws of physics in order for a quantum fluctuation to occur. How could these laws have preceded that event?

Actually quantum fluctuations have never been "observed" Straggler. They are unobservable. What we have observed are their effects. We have never observed air either. It is invisible to our eyes. But we sure have observed its effects. Likewise just because we have never observed God doesn't mean we can't detect His effects. And I think that these effects are clearly and scientifically detectable. All one needs do is look for specified information where the only possible ramification is that it was formed by a supremely intelligent being. i.e...laws of physics, the arrangement of the cosmos, the parameters of our solar system and planet to support life, the specified code in DNA etc...

I would love nothing more. I’m pretty sure though, that someone will complain we are off topic somehow, but let’s give it a shot.If we can't agree on what evidence might look like then we won't agree that it is "backed up," so first let me ask you a couple of questions regarding the detection of intelligence. Do you agree with marine biologists that say that one intriguing way to detect intelligence in dolphins is to try and determine if their chirps and whistles have specific meanings? And do you agree with SETI scientists that say a good way to detect intelligence from other worlds would be to look for a bandwidth being transmitted at a very specific narrow band frequency? Or to look for flashes of light in a specific millisecond range, indicating a possible engineered laser?I’m going to assume that your answer would be yes, having the scientific mind that you do. So this demonstrates at least two different sciences we can look to that are searching for intelligence from non-human life forms. The question here of course is, is there anything about these two entirely different kinds of sciences that are similar? One could argue that there is. They both appear to be looking for specified information. That is to say, they both are looking for something that is arranged in a certain way for a particularly intended purpose. The chirps, clicks, and whistles of the dolphin, or the specifically narrow bandwidth frequency, or a specifically fast flash of light from deep space.In fact one could argue that specified information is the biggest clue to detecting intelligence. The very definition of specificity incorporates words like purpose or intent. It’s almost redundant to even say, but you’d be surprised at how many I’ve encountered that don’t make the connection. Of course anything with an intent or purpose must have an intelligent source. Therefore we know for certain that when we observe specificity that we are observing something with an intelligent source. We can say this with certainty because we have never observed (physically) anything of a specified nature form apart from intelligence.So this of course raises the question of how do we tell for sure if something is specified? What criteria can we use to say something is specified? There are three things that are required to be present at one time. There must of course be the transmission of information (transmitter), there must be the independent reception of the information (receiver), and thirdly the observer must be able to make the connection that the information used by the receiver is completely independent of the transmitter and that only that information arranged in that order will initiate the response. An example would be a key and a lock. The key transmits the information to the independent lock tumblers and the observer recognizes, though independent of each other, only the specific carving arrangement on the key will open the lock. Likewise when a marine biologist suspects specified information might be present in the sounds that a dolphin makes, he or she begins to look for specific patterns of sounds made between them that initialize certain responses. Only those specific patterns of sounds will initialize that response.Sometimes the observer is both receiver and observer, like when he looks at Mount Rushmore. He sees the patterns carved out into the mountain side and recognizes them from a completely independent experience. If a SETI scientist were to detect a very narrow bandwidth frequency coming from deep space he or she would recognize that frequency from an independent experience that frequencies this narrow are only known to be artificially generated and not naturally forming.So I'll stop here to see if you are in agreement with what specificity is, how it is detected, and that it is one of the best ways (not the only way) to detect intelligence?