Creationism vs Darwinism

[Tom1200]

On 5/24/2020 at 5:45 PM, Cookie Monster said:

What I have shown logically is that one thing cannot exist without space, time, and matter existing. They in turn cannot exist unless there is a start and finish (a big bang and big crunch). So to have a universe we do not require a big bang to start things off.

I know this is a website for clever people, whereas I'm thick as the proverbial, me.  I'm sure that's why I don't follow the logic in Cookie's post, so could someone gently point out where I'm going wrong?

A  "One thing cannot exist without space, time, and matter existing."  I get this - if we are real and live in a real universe then we are real and live in a real universe.

B  "They in turn cannot exist unless there is a start and finish (a big bang and big crunch)."  I get this too - the universe we inhabit appears to have had a start, 1/H₀ seconds ago.  We'll call that the Big Bang.  (I'm going to treat the Big Bang as a proper noun and give it capital letters because 'big bang' rather understates the magnitude of that event.) 

(Aside - the scientific jury is still out on the Big Crunch scenario.  Superficially it appears logical to conclude that the universe will come to an end one day, but given that we're an unknown percentage of the way into the expansion phase we ought to remain open to the notion that further discoveries and ideas might develop.)

C  "So to have a universe we do not require a big bang to start things off."  This is the intellectual leap I don't understand.  To me logic is if A then B then C.  But here it's if A then B then C therefore not B.  I'm sure there's a really clever term for such an argument, but I confess I don't know very much about most things.

[Duke Wellington]

40 minutes ago, Tom1200 said:

I know this is a website for clever people, whereas I'm thick as the proverbial, me.  I'm sure that's why I don't follow the logic in Cookie's post, so could someone gently point out where I'm going wrong?

A  "One thing cannot exist without space, time, and matter existing."  I get this - if we are real and live in a real universe then we are real and live in a real universe.

B  "They in turn cannot exist unless there is a start and finish (a big bang and big crunch)."  I get this too - the universe we inhabit appears to have had a start, 1/H₀ seconds ago.  We'll call that the Big Bang.  (I'm going to treat the Big Bang as a proper noun and give it capital letters because 'big bang' rather understates the magnitude of that event.) 

(Aside - the scientific jury is still out on the Big Crunch scenario.  Superficially it appears logical to conclude that the universe will come to an end one day, but given that we're an unknown percentage of the way into the expansion phase we ought to remain open to the notion that further discoveries and ideas might develop.)

C  "So to have a universe we do not require a big bang to start things off."  This is the intellectual leap I don't understand.  To me logic is if A then B then C.  But here it's if A then B then C therefore not B.  I'm sure there's a really clever term for such an argument, but I confess I don't know very much about most things.

What do you require to post a reply on these forums?

You require a computer, the internet, and electricity. What do they require? A factory to make the computer, fibre optic cables in the ground, and a power plant. What do they require? And on and on and on.

Nothing in our universe has the properly of independent existence, everything requires other things to exist. Hence only interdependence exists.

I have shown nothingness cannot exist, that there must at the minimum always be one thing, and the one thing cannot exist on its own. Its requires other things like you require other things to post a reply on a forum. So through interdependence the universe is required for the one thing to exist, and that is creationism.

[Tom1200]

9 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

I have shown nothingness cannot exist.

All you've done is completely ignore my point.  You said the universe started with a Big Bang, then immediately afterwards you wrote the universe did not need a Big Bang to start.  Which one is right?

[hetrodoxly]

11 minutes ago, Tom1200 said:

All you've done is completely ignore my point.  You said the universe started with a Big Bang, then immediately afterwards you wrote the universe did not need a Big Bang to start.  Which one is right?

Both of these statements could be true.

[Golden Duck]

On 5/25/2020 at 1:27 PM, Piney said:

Batman.  

[Piney]

1 minute ago, Golden Duck said:

What are you?

Chuck Norris is a anti-vaxxer! All batman has to do is hit him with a rusty batarang !!! 

[Golden Duck]

36 minutes ago, Piney said:

What are you?

Chuck Norris is a anti-vaxxer! All batman has to do is hit him with a rusty batarang !!! 

I dunno.  Chuck Norris has some pretty smooth moves... and big hands.

Just look at 'em as he waves after stealing your bike in the following clip.

 

[Piney]

1 minute ago, Golden Duck said:

Just look at 'em as he waves after stealing your bike in the following clip.

That's @third_eye's bike.

Mine was a Yamaha. 

[Duke Wellington]

9 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

All you've done is completely ignore my point.  You said the universe started with a Big Bang, then immediately afterwards you wrote the universe did not need a Big Bang to start.  Which one is right?

If you cannot understand basic English then what do you want me to do about it?

Its your problem not mine.

Edited May 27, 2020 by Cookie Monster