Evolution is NOT science: A challenge

Is nothingness a reality? Does nothingness have a beginning, an ending? What created nothingness?

There has never been any fossils "in the process" of turning into another species. Never. Over millions, and millions of fossils, and not "one" can be produce. We need "transforming" fossils, not Similarities.I have never seen any "Dats" or "Cogs" have you?
A common designer produces a common species. In similar fashion, a truckload of cement can produce fence posts, sidewalks, skyscrapers, etc.
Also, an artist is known for his "similar" work.

I agree that it means "the absence of all things, including esistence."
However, if nothingness does not exists. I want to know what caused the eternal nothingness to spring forth the big bang?Something must have caused it. Nothingness which does not exist, could not have caused anything to exist.

I just want tangible evidence. I only hear stories, and theories explaining away reasons to not present tangible evidence.Some people believe in God,whom they cannot see. And others believe in eternal nothingess, in which they cannot see. Having the highest volumes of is good, but does not prove it to be factual.Communism mandates their schools not only Marxism, but Karl Marx was a follower of Darwinism. Do you believe we came from animals? If you do, then you wouldn't object having your kids, my kids sleeping around with animals?Bazaar question? Yes, but I'm just following the rules of the animal kingdom.What moral standard is correct? The animal law? Why? Why not? Is killing wrong just because the Laws of the country say so? Killing is a natural instinct of animals, why would we object to it if we were just sophisticated animals?But what do I know, I'm just a monkeys ankle......oops monkeys can't spell

I already know that people will do strange things with animals, but that was not the issue. All I was asking was if "you" yourself, would allow your kids to have sex with animals? Would you allow your kids to have sex with same species (human adults)?You must believe there is something wrong with that, because I definitely know it's wrong. Do you disagree with me?Well, since there is no right and wrongs in your eyes, then there is
nothing wrong with your friends, or yourself doing that also with your kids?Animals do not have any moral values. Nothing wrong with pleasing our natural adult,human instincts. Your kids wont have such instincts, but I know some crazy adults do. I believe in morals because I do not believe I am an animal.If a child molester wanted my kids, or yours would that be ok with you? If we are just animals, my kids, your kids,or your parents should have no problem with each other?Don't you believe that morals stop us from doing what is "internally wrong"? If I called your Mom a "dog" would you take offense to that? I know I would, so should you.But you should not, because you believe your Mom is an animal. You said it not me.(We are animals) There is no rights and wrongs, correct?I really do not believe you or any human being would allow such -bad- behavior on their family. But if you do object, then you contradict yourself, because you and I know that your Mom is not an animal, but a loving human being. Am I correct?How about the beheading of the people in Iraq, is that right or wrong? Survival of the fittest? If you couldn't stop someone from doing that to your family, would you get upset/angry? You shouldn't get angry. It would be perfectly ok for someone to do that, unless you believe there is right and wrongs.The link you showed me, were you implying the ape fossil? I'll answer your question on the Cassmir Effect.

The main stream of Evolutionists do not believe in right in wrongs. No moral Lawgiver.....Then you believe that you have a conscious, and you can distinquish right from wrong because you have a conscious?Is love is simply a biological drive, and purely an animal instinct. What is the value of love? You cannot get the value of love from matter and energy.What is the core of love? Is love a reality? Or is it jut pure molecues of atoms, and energy, then I suppose, love does not really exist, considering it comes from a biological chemical reaction that creates fuzzies inside people.If love is not real, then hate is just a boiling state of our imagination, and does not exist, because hate is the absence of love. I hope you never tell your kids that you love them because it does not even exist.Evolution is the transformation of animals into humans. If you believe that we are animals, and animals came from matter, which Evolutionist believe-then the consciousness cannot be a byproduct of dead matter, considering - it has emotions, sensations, desires, free choice, and personal convictions. If the universe with dead matter having no conscious, feelings, desires, or any type of choice that involved the thinking process- "How do you get something totally different, which consists of, -consciousness, living, thinking, feeling believing creatures?"Our "consciousness" has a unique structure, far beyond anyone's imagination. It literally separates us from all creatures. The evidence for consciousness suggests that life after death is credible. DNA is made up of biological information, similar to books, and computers. -- No explanation has ever been found, which explains how information got inside our biological structure.Considering that non-living matter, which came into existence by means of nothingness, how could it possibly instruct our trillions of cells inside our DNA, and follow highly complicated instructions, therefore producing a very sophisticated human design?

I guess I am Have a great day.

Hi Compmage,People always ask this question, but they do not realize that they are basically doing the same thing , which is -believing that an uncaused nothingness, created something.What is the difference between believing in an uncaused 'designer', creating something. And what you believe-an uncaused nothingness, creating something? Same principle.The Big Bang created -time-and space. Since time has a beginning, and space(universe) has a beginning, then something caused it. You can believe that the 'uncaused nothingness' created it, but I also have the right to believe that the 'uncaused designer' created it. Same results, different initiators.We can agree to disagree.

Yeah, I guess it's almost like the missing link. You have to believe in something you can't seeTake care.

I guess that if the 'uncaused nothingness and the uncaused Designer' need to keep adding a nuber before it, then we would never have this universe because they both beliefs would cancel each other out because they were uncaused?Since an infinite past would involve an actual infinite number of events, then the past can't be infinite.Imagine I had an infinite number of rocks in my posession, and that I wanted to give you some. In fact, I gave you an infinite number of rocks.One way I could do that would be to give you the entire pile of rocks. In that case I would have zero rocks left for myself. Another way to do it would be to give you all the odd numbered rocks. Then I would still have an infinity left over for myself, and you would have infinite too.You would have just as many as I would-and in fact, each of us would have just as many as I would-and, in fact, each of us would have just as many as I originally had before we divided into odd and even (emphasise on the basis of infinite) or I can give you all the rocks numbered four and higher.That way you would have an infinite of rocks, but I only have three. These illustrations demonstrate that the return of an actual infinite number of things leans to contradictory results.Example:1) I give all rocks = infinity minus infinity = 0
2) I give all odd number rocks = infinity minus infinity = infinity.
3) I give all four and greater = infinity minus infinity = threeThe Idea of an actual infinite is just conceptual so mathmaticians can deal with infinity quantities and infinite numbers in the conceptual realm.However- and heres the point, its not descriptive of what can happen in the real world. You can't have an infinite numbers of events in the past.Substitute past events for rocks and you can see the absurdities that would result. So the universe can't have an infinite number of events in the past, it must have had a beginning.For that reason, mathematicians are forbidden fro doing subtraction and division in transfinite arithetic, because this would lead to contradictions. The idea of an actual infinity is just conceptual; it exists only in our minds.Working within crtain rules, matheaticians can deal with infinite quantities and infinite numbers in the conceptual realm. HOWERVER, IT'S NOT DESCRIPTIVE OF WHAT CAN HAPPEN IN THE REAL WORLD.
This is called the -IMPOSSIBILITY OF TRAVERSING THE INFINITE-"iT WOULD BE AS IF SOMEONE HAD MANAGED TO COUNT DOWN ALL OF THE NEGATIVE NUMBERS AND TO ARRIVE AT ZERO AT THE PRESENT OENT.Take care.This message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-07-2004 01:46 AM

Could it be that that the reason people jump into the wagon of a multiple universe system is simply because they have a difficult time explaining a single universe system?Most of these hypotheses are entirely speculative and have little basis in physics. However, the most popular theory, inflationary cosmology, has more credibility, proposed by Andre Linde of Stanford University, which is based on advanced principles of quantum physics. Nonetheless, it defies easy visualization.A small part of this super space is blow up by a theoretical inflation field, sort of like soap bubbles forming in an infinite ocean full of dish detergent. Each bubble becomes a new universe. -Chaotic inflation theory-Then, each universe has a beginning and is finite in size, while the much larger super space There is an awful lot of loose ends with it. If Linde’s theory could account for the existence of many universes, this would not destroy the case for the single universe. It would just kick the argument up another level.If the single universe system were as complex as it is, a multiple universe system would just add on to the complexity, and order theory. You would need a mechanism to supply the energy needed for the bubble universes.Second, you would need a mechanism to form the bubbles. This would be Einstein’s equation of general relativity. Because of its peculiar for, this would supposedly cause the bubble universes to form and the ocean to keep expanding.Third, you would need a mechanism to convert the energy of the inflation field to the normal mass/energy that we find in our universe. Fourth, you would need a mechanism to allow enough variation in the constants of physics among the various universes.Not only that, you would need a way to vary the constants of physics so that by random chance you would produce some universes, like ours, that have the right fine-tuning to sustain life.Super string Theory?Right now, it’s just a theory whose main merits are that it’s mathematically elegant and that it holds the promise of unifying quantum mechanics and general relativity, two branches of physics that physicist have struggled to reconcile for over fifty years.Without Einsteins equation and the inflating field working together harmoniously, it wouldn’t work. If the universe obeyed Newton’s theory of gravity instead of Einstein’s, it wouldn’t work.You would also have to have the right background laws in place. For instance, without the so-called principle of quantization, all of the electrons in an atom would be sucked into the atomic nuclei. That would make atoms impossible. Furthermore, without the Pauli-exclusion principle, electrons would occupy the lowest orbit around the nucleus, and that would make comples atoms impossible.Finally, without a universe attractive force between all masses- such as gravity-stars and plants couldn’t form. If just one of these components was missing or different, it’s highly improbable that any life-permitting universes could be produced.Also, you would need to make trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions of universes I order to increase the odds that the cosmological constant would come out right at least once, since it’s finely tuned to an incomprehensible degree. And that’s just one parameter.In all that, you would also have to consider the Razor’s Edge Principle about single universe systems.This message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-07-2004 09:20 PM

I believe you were talking about-The Oscillating Model- which contradicts the known laws of physics. Theorems by Hawking and Penrose show that as long as the universe is governed by general relativity, the existence of an initial singularity-or beginning-is inevitable, and that it's impossible to pass through a singularity to a subsequent state.And there's no known physics that could reverse a cotracting universe and suddenly make it bouce before it hits the singularity. Thw whole theory was simply a theoretial abstractin.Physics never supported it. Another problem is that in order for the universe to oscillate , it has to contract at some point. For this to happen, the universe would have to be dense enough to generate sufficient gravity that would eventually slow its expansion to a halt and then, with icreasing rapidity, contract it into a big crunch.But estimates have consistently indicated that the universe is far below the density needed to contrast, even when you include ot only its luminous matter, but also all of the invisible dark matter as well.It's very likely that the recent tests have calculated a 95-98 percent certainty that the universe will not contract, but that it will expand forever. In fact, in a completely unexpected development, the studies indicated that the expansion is not decelerating, but it's actually accelerating.This put the nails on this model. And one more problem: even if physics allowed the universe to contract, scientific studies have shown that entropy would be conserved from one cycle to the next.This would have the efect of each expansion gettig bigger and bigger and bigger. Now, trace that backwards in time and what do you get? They get smaller and small and smaller, until you finally come to the smallest cycle-and then the -beginning of the univrs.Other people claim that the universe undergoes an endless sequence of cycles i which it contracts with a big crunch and reemerges in a n expanding Big Bang, with trillions of years of evolution in between.And that mysterious 'dark energy' first pushes the universe apart at an accelerating rate, but then it chages its character and causes it to contract and then rebound in cycle after cycle.Howerver, this scenario postulates that our universe is a three-dimensional membrane in a five-dimensional space, and that there's another three dimensional membrance which is in an eternal cycle of approaching our membrance and colliding with it.When this happens , it suposedly causes an expansion of our universe from the point of colision. then our universe retreats and repeats the cycle again, and on and on.....etc.Well, this isn't even a model, it's just sort of a scenario. This cyclic scenario is plaqued with problems. for one thing, it is inconsistent with the very strng theory it's based on! nobody has dimesional equivaent of a three-dimensional osillating universe.As such, it faces many of the same problems that the old osillating model did.But more interesting, I believe it was Alan Guth-inflation theorist- and two other physicists wrote an article on how inflation is not past eternal.They were able to generalize their results to show that they were also applicagble to multidimensinal models. So it turns out that even the cyclical model in five dimensions has to have a beginning.

The reason I believe in a 'Personal Cause' is the following example of many.Water freezes at zero degree Centrigrade. If the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity past, then any water that was around would be frozen from eternty past.It would be impossible for the water to just begin to freeze a finite time ago. In other words, once the sufficient conditions were met-that is, the temperature was low enough-then the consequence would be that water would automatically freeze.So if the universe were just a mechanical consequence that would occur whenever sufficient conditions were met, and the sufficient conditions were met eternally, then it would exist from eternity past. The effect would be co-eternal with the cause.Putting the issue a big simpler, There is no ground for supposing that matter and energy existed before and was suddenly galvanized into action. For what could distinguish that moment from all other moents in eternity? It is simpler to postulate creation ex nihilo-Divine will constituging Nature from nothingness.

I agree with what you say. By the way,Do you like to gamble? Let's pretend we were kids playing with cards. we can both agree that death is inevitable.So let's use that base. I believe that somewhere around the world, two people die at the same time.Let's just say that these two persons were you and I. Forget about all these arguents. We would be too busy looking at girls to discuss such issues.We are eighteen years, but our number was called. We are destined to die together.Knowing that we shall die together, and let's say we also know the exact time-Noon-. Knowing we have less than five minutes left we gamble on our destiny.You believe you go into nothingness-I believe I can go to heaven-not because I'm better, just because my beliefs state that.
We play cards, and two minutes are left. In these two minutes we shall die, and we will find out once and for all if anything lies beyond the universe.All the people that supported me, and all the people that supported you wont even come along-all alone.Now, one minute before our final breath, we gamble on who is going to be right. If I am wrong, I will go where you believe-nothingness,or wherever you believe, and I will not even know I was wrong, because I will not even exist.But if you are wrong, you will not go where I believe simply because you chose not to believe.Even out of convenience-who would you say is the better gamber?
You do not even need to answer. But in my world, it's only common sense to go with the odds, and not against.Bad example? Oh well, i tried.
I also answered your question on the Oscillating Model-Expansion and Contracting Model earlier.This message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-08-2004 12:24 AMThis message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-08-2004 12:42 AM

I'm convinced, but that analogy was just a way of getting a point across between two persons at a stage when these issues aren't as important-18 years old.That was the way I approached life at the time. I was a kid, and so I just broke it down to the basics.I know too much not to believe. But I'm sure you believe the same on your side of this issue. All I have to say is..........Good Luck