Creationist model

matter is energy.space is not empty, it is only apparently empty.fields, light, radiation.a real thing cannot exist outside energy.existence is real, existence is energy.Edited by tesla, : reality sinks in.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

tesla OK, but since energy is an abstract concept whose only known property is its conservation you really have not clarified much here. To be precise matter is somewhat more than energy. I believe you are meaning to say that mass is energy which would be correct. Matter is mass occupying space {mass volume} so it also includes that in its definition. Indeed ,empty space is a turmoil of virtual energy that is quite enormous. A cubic meter of which could boil the oceans of earth.
However it is empty is the sense that it interacts with our world in a rather ethereal manner, that is to say that energy fluctuations must occur as a paired condition with time and whose product{energy-time} must amount to no more than the Planck constant. We have no real way of knowing this since we have no understanding of a mechanism for energy and only are aware of its property of conservation. Does existence obey a conservation law?

Space is defined only as length, width, and height, the three spacial dimensions. It is not a substance of its own. Space does contain matter, but that doesn't mean space itself has some sort of "substance." A field is quite different from energy or matter - it would be better to describe a field as a property of matter, ie, a gravitational field is created by any amount of mass. Light is a form of radiation. None of these have anything to do with saying that space has substance. Energy cannot "contain" anything, so I'm not sure what you're saying. This is like saying "a real thing cannot exist outside hot." More of your nonsense. There is no "law" here. You can't give weight to an idea like the Law of Gravity just by using the word "law." All you've done is rambled about nonsense and philosophical sophistry with a nice bit of word salad and a touch of crazy.I'll bet you'd get along really well with this guy.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

your right. the only thing really conclusive here is that nothing is conclusive. and given our awareness may never be.there will be those who define reality as impossible to have existed without direction, and those who accept that no evidence means no conclusion.ill have to accept what best works for me to cope with life, which is belief in a creator due to complexity, and throw away my "law" of existence, since it proves absolutely nothing.i apologize, I'm not a scientist and shouldn't have been trying to rationalize like one.thanks for your unending patience. and happy debateing oh..on the plus side, i did give alot of you some laughs

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

What kind of lying fraking idiot are you?If you have a creation model then simply present it!If you have to admit that there is no such thing as a creation model, then simply admit the fact!Heiland schei verflucht doch mal! What is wrong with you?

Still waiting for less bullshit and more model or else you could stand accused of lying. Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

the only difference my creation model has with evolution is that it includes "God" for a starting point. and that the tree of evolution is not a tree, but a forest.its pretty simple, and the only way to prove it is to prove God.but God cannot be proven accept by faith. and my faith in him is because my faith in reality and energy and matter; is that it does exist, and the order of its structure too complicated to exist in its forms without direction.science cannot accept an act of faith in reality, unless the act of faith is only relevant to what is being studied and defined within scientific tentatives.i could argue that this would mean scientist agree that reality is tentative, but whats the point? the point of view of the individual is whats important, and i cant change anyones mind but my own, and will choose to live under my more simplistic but definate assumtion of my existence within all energy with God at its core.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

So you 'model' for creationism is the scientific one with god bolted on to the start?Way to provide a creationism model.So your 'evidence' is your personal belief.Way to provide evidence.But you have very clearly showed the extreme paucity of creationist scientific rigour.

is it really any more absurd than to believe the world went "poof" from absolutely nothing and taking acts of faith everyday of your walking life with that as your assumption of reality?Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

That "model" is already well known so we don't need to discuss it any further.Now you may leave this thread alone to allow others to have a chance to present their model. However if others want to ask about your "forest" model of life and why the evidence supports a different view you may answer those questions.I will be very quick to suspend you if you waste space in this thread.

tesla Well that is the nature of the problem. You assume that the "nothing" of nature is beholding to your assumption of it. The truth is that nothing as nature reveals it is far more subtle and involved than the shallow understanding you adhere to.
Imagine a beach of sand and you wish to define nothingness in philosophical versus scientific terms. Again you would possibly assert that nothing means no thing at all{philosophy} and yet in terms of sand which we can measure and define{scientific} in terms of a minimum size { same as we do with the quantum aspect of the real world} then "nothingness" need only be defined as that which is below the minimum size we have specified to define sand itself. Anything smaller is indeed philosophically possible but useless when we are defining sand.

The topic is the creationist model side. This is not the place to discuss the scientific one.Edited by AdminNosy, : correct author

your statement doesn't add or take away from my argument.nothing is only apparent, yet the fact you are sitting there is a "real" undeniable statement.only someone mentally ill could suggest otherwise and be confident in it.there is NO circumstance where you'll find that something that is "real" can exist outside energy.which means that although you cant see an energy, that if something be "real" that it can only be based on a "real" energy.it can be "apparently" so, but impossible to be "definitely" so, because, if even the "possibility" of that is assumed, then you are standing in a room telling people the potential exist for you and them not to exist, while at the same time your standing there in front of them with the same definite conclusion you "are".do you see my point at all?if i get banned for this reply, then let it be my last, because explaining my law is the proof that makes the model have any credence at all.but also, what more can i explain? i can only present evidence and its up to the individual to connect the dots.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

You have no model. You have no law. You haven't a clue as to what is meant by "model" and "law" in science. You have no evidence. You don't even understand the meaning of the word "evidence".

Tesla,You are not--in any way, shape or form--presenting a scientific model as you proposed. Please learn what a scientific model is before proposing to state one.You are obliged to propose a model that makes predictions. You have to propose something scientists can test. If you aren't doing that, you aren't doing science. Saying 'it's just as likely the universe came from something as nothing' gives a scientist nothing to test. Saying such a thing neither proposes nor refutes a scientific proposition.What you have done here is attempt a philosophical argument, not a scientific model. This is of no professional use to scientists, but it might be of some casual interest as philosophy if you showed any sign of knowing what you were doing. As it stands, you show no more acquaintance with what constitutes a valid philosophical argument than you do with what constitutes a valid scientific model. The word games you play here are the kind of bush-league silliness that gives philosophy a bad name among those who are ignorant of it.Philosophy is not expected to prove itself empirically as science must. But valid philosophy does accord with observable phenomena and explains it in a plausible (if not irrefutable) manner. What is essential is that any argument put forth must hold together logically. Just as in science, terms must be strictly defined and conclusions rationally drawn. Competent philosophers, like competent scientists, are ruthless logicians. Why? Because they know that if there's no discipline, there's no knowledge. Bad logic is out of court. It stands invalidated by reason.Your scientific model fails because it is not a model. Your philosophical argument (whatever it is) fails because it has already equivocated on at least two crucial terms. Your terms are not staying put, which means your ideas aren't.

Space
You use this term two ways. You mean, on the one hand, the abstract concepts of breadth, height, and depth. On the other you mean 'outer space', that is, interplanetary space as it really exists with its radiation, light, particles and so on. So which is it going to be?

​

Real
This term is a disaster. As your whole argument seems to hinge on the idea of 'reality,' it would be encouraging indeed if you could give some indication that you hold a clear idea about it yourself. You do not do this. You consistently mix up the idea of 'real' with other things and ask your readers to do the same.

​

To begin, for example, by assuming that 'real' and 'material' are synonyms. You do not argue the premise; you assume it. But they are not. (Never mind that this is an odd assumption indeed for a theist to be making.) From that you want to argue that since reality is always matter (an equation you have not demonstrated), reality must also be always energy. Why? Because matter 'is' energy, you say--an equation that has problems of its own, as you have been shown.

It's just a mess. I'm sorry.Thank you for your candor in admitting that the grand race stalled at the starting gate. But please: the next time you want to make a hash of science, be so kind as to use science for your hash. Philosophy doesn't deserve this treatment. It's an innocent bystander.________Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo.Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.