Once you eliminate the impossible...

You've probably seen this quote.

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

Let'a apply this quote to the Creation/Evolution debate.

First, we'll look at the impossible.

It is impossible for something physical to created itself. This is a scientific fact. It is the law of causality. In fact, it is the foundation of all modern science.

In spite of this scientific evidence, atheists actually believe that the universe just popped into existence all by itself. This belief violates the most fundamental law of science, yet they believe it anyway.

Now that I have proven that the universe could not have created itself, what does that leave us with? You guessed it. The universe was created. Simple logic. Backed by science. End of discussion.

Maybe the universe was NOT CREATED.


Simply because you are asserting it was...and because you are pretending that your assertion is backed by facts...doesn't mean it was.

People like you want to assert that the universe is a creation...so that you can demand a creator.

Get off it.
 
That's funny. I don't recall conceding anything. Let's try this. Are you aware of what scientists say about energy? It cannot be created or destroyed. Now, if it cannot be created, and I'm not saying that it can't be, then it must have always existed. Like I said. Basic high school science.

Let’s try this dumbfuck. You made a claim. I merely want you to provide the source of your information. A scientific and peer-reviewed paper stating that energy always existed.

Shouldn’t be too difficult for you. That is, unless it’s pure bullshit.
 
You've probably seen this quote.
"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
Let'a apply this quote to the Creation/Evolution debate.
First, we'll look at the impossible.
It is impossible for something physical to created itself. This is a scientific fact. It is the law of causality. In fact, it is the foundation of all modern science.
In spite of this scientific evidence, atheists actually believe that the universe just popped into existence all by itself. This belief violates the most fundamental law of science, yet they believe it anyway.
Now that I have proven that the universe could not have created itself, what does that leave us with? You guessed it. The universe was created. Simple logic. Backed by science. End of discussion.

How do you know it's impossible? As is often the case, when laypersons try to corrupt science to make a point, you leave out the "as far as we know currently" caveat. The so-called Big Bang theory is the most widely-accepted(for now!) explanation for the beginnings of our present Universe. It takes extremely complex mathematics to describe the conditions at the moment of expansion, but we know it happened due to the residual radiation left behind. This article is written in layperson's language.
https://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html

You haven't proven anything other than desperation to try to convince ppl that you're right and everyone else who doesn't believe like you do are wrong.

Kind of what Muslims are accused of doing.
 
Maybe the universe was NOT CREATED.


Simply because you are asserting it was...and because you are pretending that your assertion is backed by facts...doesn't mean it was.

People like you want to assert that the universe is a creation...so that you can demand a creator.

Get off it.

If it wasn't created, then why does it exist? It didn't create itself.
 
Let’s try this dumbfuck. You made a claim. I merely want you to provide the source of your information. A scientific and peer-reviewed paper stating that energy always existed.

Shouldn’t be too difficult for you. That is, unless it’s pure bullshit.

You know what? I really dislike it when someone cannot reply without using personal insults. I especially hate it when said person is such an ignoramus. You can't even comprehend grade school science. Pathetic. Welcome to my ignore list.
 
If it wasn't created, then why does it exist? It didn't create itself.

The problem here is that you are assuming that the existence of an object presumes the existence of a creator of that object. As pointed out by Frank, you want there to be a creator so you are ignoring science, logic, and current knowledge in order to make an argument that would demand that there is a creator.

There is zero evidence either way for the existence of such a being, or the non-existence.
 
How do you know it's impossible? As is often the case, when laypersons try to corrupt science to make a point, you leave out the "as far as we know currently" caveat. The so-called Big Bang theory is the most widely-accepted(for now!) explanation for the beginnings of our present Universe. It takes extremely complex mathematics to describe the conditions at the moment of expansion, but we know it happened due to the residual radiation left behind. This article is written in layperson's language.
https://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html

You haven't proven anything other than desperation to try to convince ppl that you're right and everyone else who doesn't believe like you do are wrong.

Kind of what Muslims are accused of doing.

It is impossible. The fundamental law of physics is the law of causality. Nothing can create itself. It's a scientific fact.
 
You know what? I really dislike it when someone cannot reply without using personal insults. I especially hate it when said person is such an ignoramus. You can't even comprehend grade school science. Pathetic. Welcome to my ignore list.

Wow! A very dramatic concession to boot!
 
It is impossible. The fundamental law of physics is the law of causality. Nothing can create itself. It's a scientific fact.

Actually, it is not. I think that you are talking about the first law of thermodynamics which states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Have you taken any science courses at the university level? Maybe this analogy will help. Think of an atomic bomb warhead. It contains a shaped charge surrounding enriched plutonium (P-239). When the charge is triggered, it compresses the plutonium to a critical mass, which then causes the nuclear explosion. What happens to all the materials in that warhead? They're gone, right? Not exactly. Most of the material is converted into energy, therefore showing that the first law is valid.

As for the Universe, the Big Bang, and the first law:

"It really describes a very rapid expansion or stretching of space itself rather than an explosion in pre-existing space. Perhaps a better analogy sometimes used to describe the even expansion of galaxies throughout the universe is that of raisins baked in a cake becoming more distant from each other as the cake rises and expands, or alternatively of a balloon inflating.

"Neither does it attempt to explain what initiated the creation of the universe, or what came before the Big Bang, or even what lies outside the universe. All of this is generally considered to be outside the remit of physics, and more the concern of philosophy. Given that time and space as we understand it began with the Big Bang, the phase “before the Big Bang” is as meaningless as “north of the North Pole”.

"Therefore, to those who claim that the very idea of a Big Bang violates the First Law of Thermodynamics (also known as the Law of Conservation of Energy) that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, proponents respond that the Big Bang does not address the creation of the universe, only its evolution, and that, as the laws of science break down anyway as we approach the creation of the universe, there is no reason to believe that the First Law of Thermodynamics would apply."

( https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang.html )
 
Back
Top