Young earth creationism is valid and the macroevolutionary hypothesis is not valid

Doesn't the Casimir effect demonstrate that something is in fact coming from nothing, constantly, in every point in space?

If it's demonstratable that it's actually happening, what's the relevance of logic? Logic must always give way to actual observation.

I don't understand why you feel the universe is obligated to obey human-defined rules of logic.Stuff comes from nothing for no reason. This is theory substantiated by observation, and it trumps whatever statements of logic you care to make.Ultimately, all derivations in logic are tautology - they're only true because we assume the axioms of logic to be true. Why would any axiomatic system be expected to trump observation? It doesn't make sense. I'm not abandoning it so much as recognizing the limitations of any axiomatic system - something you fail/refuse to do?

Since Godel has proved that any axiomatic system of sufficient power to represent number theory is incomplete, logic is clearly avoidable. There are true statements that cannot be derived, and derivable statements that are not true.All statements of logic are tautologies. You have failed to address this point.You keep failing to rebut the fact that something from nothing is observed in the universe. Is there any reason you keep repeating your assertions rather than addressing rebuttals, which is against the forum guidelines?Only a fool places logic before observation. I'm not inclined to waste my time with you unless you can address my rebuttals.

Likewise. What would be the point of talking to somebody who places theory over observation?

Observably false. Therefore your argument is falsified.Furthermore the contingency of the universe is assertion. If the universe isn't contingent, as is reasonable to believe (when have we ever observed there not being a universe?), then the argument fails there, as well.Aristotlian non-contradiction as you have presented it is proven false by Godel. In any axiomatic system of sufficient power, you can derive both G and ~G, where G is "the statement G is false." Ergo non-contradiction is false.

How can you make that argument in the face of Godel's proof? I gave you a specfic example: Godel's proof, aka the Incompleteness Theorem. Hardly. The problem simply is that logic is proven by Godel to be incomplete. Non-contradiction is falsified by the fact that there's an infinite number of statements that can be derived for which their contradictions are also derivable.Logic is inconsistent if you assume that it is complete. Godel proved this. The only way to remove the contradiction in logic is to assume that logic is incomplete.Am I to conclude that you are attempting to use logic without being aware of Godel's proof?

And I don't see any evidence you've examined Godel's proof, nor that you know what logic is. Logic is a system by which statements are derived from axioms. It's not just "thinking". Logic proceeds by rules. But those rules have a consequence - logic can't be both complete and consistent.If you're going to expect non-contradiction to be true, you have to accept that there will be true statements that you can't derive with logic. If you assume that all true statements are derivable by logic, then non-contradiction is falsified.Take your pick. It can't be both.

Why bother? Since the last time I showed you observation that proved your logic wrong, you ignored it in favor of your preconceptions.There's absolutely nothing that Godel could show you that would convince you if actual particles appearing out of nothing in every point in space won't convince you. And I believe that you have constructed a shell of perfect, unassailiable, invincible ignorance. Why should I waste my time with somebody so perfectly impermeable to reason?

Except for, of course, the Casimir effect, which is quite literally something coming from nothing.When are you going to look that up?

I would suggest that you Google it. My clumsy explanations are more likely to confuse you than anything else.

The Casimir effect is established science, and the particles appearing spontaneously in otherwise empty volume is confirmed by the presence of Hawking radiation at the event horizons of black holes. So, in fact, something coming from nothing is established science. What is not established science is "something can't come from nothing" - that's merely your own preconception. Nobody's making that argument. The particle-pairs responsible for the Casimir effect do not violate the conservation of matter/energy. Neither, as it turns out, does the creation of the universe, if the total energy of the universe is zero. That might very well be. But you have failed to demonstrate that logic trumps observation. And you've failed to demonstrate that nothing even exists.

Ken, what is the total energy content of the universe?

So, what you're saying is that the only reason you conclude that the net energy of the universe is not zero (and therefore doesn't violate conservation) is because it would be inconvinient to your ideology if it were so.

Presented as evidence: you introduced Bible quotes into a discussion of cosmology. Clearly your Christianity "taints your thinking process"to such a degree that you are unable to distinguish between the myths of your religion and the evidence of science.