Summations Only

DPEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Not every proposed topic that says unto admin, "Physics, physics," should enter into the science forums.

quote:

---

The prediction of a Designer theory is based on the fact the universe has order and that science is all about discovering the order of the universe. The prediction of non-designer theory is based on the observation that people will generate contrived theories whenever possible in order to avoid confronting the possible existence of a creator God or Designer of the universe.

---

That's right. Your contrived nonsense is the truth, and everyone who disagrees with you does so out of willful disobedience to the Lord.Herr Ober, zhalen bitte!

Nonsense. Matter is created and destroyed in our universe all of the time. Ever heard of pair production? Happens whenever sufficiently high energy gamma rays interact with heavy nuclei. How about the mutual annihilation of protons and anti-protons?Do you even understand what the BB theory says that conditions were like in the early universe? (Yeah, the question is rhetorical).

quote:

---

You are still missing the point. The physical laws only describe what happens in the natural universe, they do not prescribe what can happen. There is no physical law so powerful it could prevent God, if he exists, from creating or destroying matter or energy. This is muddleheaded thinking.

---

You seem to be missing a few points. If, as you seem to agree, the conservation laws are only descriptive, then we don't know if they have been true for the entire lifetime of the universe. You make one exception for God, but we must also entertain other possibilities for creating matter/energy that might have existed in the early universe.Secondly, you and some others are citing an incorrect version of the conservation laws. Unlike the situation in the 19th century, we know that neither matter nor energy are conserved quantities. Matter can be created... from energy, and matter can be destroyed leaving only energy. We observed those things happening in our universe and we understand that the matter currently in our universe is the remnant of a net imbalance between matter and anti-matter that existed after the big bang.For each of the reasons given above, your line of argument that the existence of matter demonstrates evidence that God exists is just bad. Other than in your head, there is no contradiction that requires an exception that can only be God. The steady state models that Hoyle and others favored also required matter and energy to be constantly created and destroyed. Apparently those atheists did not think creating matter/energy required God.No truly scientific method is ever going to prove or disprove that God exists. Yes, there is a description of God that is compatible with the big bang, but there is also a description of the steady state universe that is compatible with God. Perhaps that's enough to suggests that people who disagree with you aren't doing so out of willful disobedience to God. To me that nonsense is every bit as offensive as being called a liar.

Perhaps Strobel said something a little different from the summary above, because what is stated about is not accurate. Surely Strobel must have limited his discussion to the types of total eclipses we can see from earth.First, solar eclipses are possible as long as the apparent size of the moon is greater than or equal to the apparent size of the sun. If the moon were substantially larger, we might still be able to observe the sun's corona during an eclipse.As for no other places in the solar system allowing eclipses of the type on earth, I don't believe that is correct. It is the case that there are no other places on the surfaces of planets where the apparent size of the sun and satellite are as nearly equal as they are on earth (although it must be pointed out that annular eclipses do occur on earth).Also I'm sure that one of Strobel's discoveries had to do with Eddington's experiment. I agree that the experiment would not have been possible in the early 20th century without the son/moon size coincidence. But let's put the experiment into perspective. Einstein had predicted the bending of light, and the resulting confirmation (not discovery) made Einstein famous in his lifetime.But let's not forget that many other pieces of evidence have confirmed the General Theory of Relativity, and at least one such confirmation (GR predictions Mercury's perihelion anomally) predates Eddington's observations. Further, we can observe gravitational lensing even without eclipses. We can also create artificial eclipses using equipment on orbiting vehicles.I don't know if Strobel actually makes the argument that God wanted to make Einstein famous, but the argument would seem incredibly silly.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.