Creationist model

In another thread, tesla claimed to have a working Creationist model that explains observed evidence and presumably rationalizes it with the Biblical account: Since that would be off-topic for that thread, I'm proposing a topic at tesla's request for any Creationist who can propose a real, working model of Creation that they believe offers a better representation of the processes by which life reached its current point than the Evolution model.Creationists should be expected to back up their model with evidence, and respond to rebuttal.I realize this is a pretty broad topic, but I'm at a loss as to how to narrow down a request for a Creationist model. Accuracy and Inerrancy is probably the best fit.

---

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

We're just waiting on you, tesla.

---

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

Oh my. tesla, this topic was proposed for you to submit your Creationist model, not to give you another outlet for your "everything exists in existence" nonsense - I really hope you're going somewhere with this, or the whole topic is worthless.But to humor you: yes, I am real, and by definition that means I exist.

---

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

(sigh) Yes, I exist in my house physically, as of this exact moment. My house is also real, and is made of physical matter.tesla, get to the model. This stuff is better placed as a preamble of assumptions for the rest of your model, not as a series of wasted messages that make us all feel like we're about to have our eyes glued to a train wreck.Remember, the post count of a thread is limited. Please get to the point.

---

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

No. Space is not composed of matter - matter is that which has mass and takes up space. Planetary bodies, for instance, are real, exist, and are made of matter, yet are not contained in anything made up of matter.

---

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

Yes. There is no matter that contains the space of the Universe, tesla.Are you seriously about to propose that there is some physical "barrier" around the Universe, and it is the Firmament of the OT? And that's what you've been referring to as "existence" all this time?

All matter exists in space. That's part of the definition of matter. They teach you this in your first science class: matter is anything that has mass and takes up space. YES! matter is not required for space to exist. Space is space, regardless of whether there is an observer or a marker. If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, it does still produce the vibrations we identify as sound.

---

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

For once, tesla, I fully understand exactly what you're saying - and the answer is yes. it is possible for matter to exist in unbounded empty space, which does not have any matter outside of the object in question "containing" the space, and still exist and be real.Now, write up a proper post. This is not an instant messenger - I'm not replying again unless you actually get to it and propose your model. Include a preamble of your assumptions like these questions if you like, but do it all in one post, and we can proceed without wasting space.

Well...thanks for finally posting your point.Unfortunately, you haven't proposed a model.You don't even have a clear hypothesis. What you have are word games regarding what you believe "existence" to be - it has nothing to do with the processes of cosmic origins, or of the processes that gave rise to life, or any other process.This isn't a model of anything, tesla. It's philosophical rambling and word games. There is no evidence presented here that there is a creator, other than "stuff exists." There is no model presented of how the "creation event" is supposed to have happened. There is no model describing the process by which life arose in its present form.There isn't a model of anything here.

---

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

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.

More to the point - why does the Universe need to "come from" anything? We know it exists, and we know that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Why could the Universe not have always existed? Nothing in science says that it did not always exist in some form or another. Even the Big Bang doesn't say the Universe had a "beginning" per se, only that there is a point very far back in the past at which all dimensions including time existed as a single point - which does not mean that matter and energy did not exist, only that they existed in a different state at the singularity.After all, tesla - you are proposing that some supreme being always existed. How do you rationalize that the Universe could not have always existed, but allow some other made-up entity to have always existed without special pleading?

---

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

Why? Because you assert that it cannot? What do you even mean by chaos?If I use an antibacterial cleaner on my countertop, and there are a few surviving organisms that have randomly mutated a resistance to my antibacterial cleaner, is this chaos, or order?When matter gravitationally attracts other matter until it eventually forms a star system, is that chaos, or order?The very properties of the Universe that we attempt to describe with science make certain ordered structures inevitable. WHAT math? You haven't shown ANY math whatsoever in your nonsense, tesla. Just bare assertion and a bunch of word games. What is "chaotic energy," tesla? You've shown so far that you don't even know what energy is. Define an "ordered structure." Provide an example of one that you don't believe could arise from natural processes. Example number 252 of bare assertions, nonsense, and word games regarding terms you don't even understand.

---

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

The links Jar posted are to three fractal plots. Essentially, a fractal is a mathematical construct made by multiple iterations of a simple equation, and the result contains infinite regression. You can zoom in on the image infinitely, and the same structure repeats itself forever. It's really quite amazing and beautiful...but is simply the result of a process, with no guiding intelligence.Humorously enough, the graphics in the book "Jurassic Park" used to denote Chaos Theory at the beginnings of new chapters were taken from a fractal. It's a wonderful example of what you seem to be referring to as "order from chaos."Just look up "fractal" in Wikipedia.

---

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

What a shame, tesla. I thought you were here to debate. You posted your "model" with the understanding that you would be expected to back up your assertions. You have not. You have been asked to define terms and provide evidence countless times, and you have ignored the requests. You have been presented with conflicting evidence and the reasons you are wrong, and you have ignored the rebuttals.You aren't looking for honest debate tesla. You're looking for blind validation of your nonsense. That's not what rational people do, and you won't find it here.

---

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

You clearly don't understand what a fractal is, then. That was a fast reply - you didn;t even look it up, did you. Shameful. So then you concede that you have no model, and that your nonsense is exactly that - nonsense. Good. Glad we have that out of the way.Now, would some other Creationist like to propose an actual model? Since we haven't seen one yet in this thread and we're already a third of the way through the post count, it would be really nice to see one proposed.

---

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