HeadingNorth Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 You then undermined the premise of your own logical reasoning with this old chestnut. How come the quantum fluctuation theory isn't flawed by the infinite regressive loop? Quantum fluctuation theory doesn't require, or posit, that there has to be a cause. It's when people argue against it on the grounds that things MUST have a cause, that they get caught in the infinite regressive loop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Quantum fluctuation theory doesn't require, or posit, that there has to be a cause. It's when people argue against it on the grounds that things MUST have a cause, that they get caught in the infinite regressive loop.Why haven't you said the same about the creationist theory? Why isn't the quantum fluctuation theory subject to the same degree of scrutiny as the creationist theory? Why isn't the quantum fluctuation theory discredited by the infinite regressive loop which makes the creationist theory a flawed theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Why haven't you said the same about the creationist theory? Why isn't the quantum fluctuation theory subject to the same degree of scrutiny as the creationist theory? Why isn't the quantum fluctuation theory discredited by the infinite regressive loop which makes the creationist theory a flawed theory? quantum fluctuations have been tested experimentally, the casimir effect demonstrates their existence for one to the best of my knowledge there isn't a single creationist science theory that has survived scientific scrutiny, I would be very interested to see a successful, repeatable experiment based on creationist science that cant be explained by "standard" science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 quantum fluctuations have been tested experimentally, the casimir effect demonstrates their existence for one to the best of my knowledge there isn't a single creationist science theory that has survived scientific scrutiny, I would be very interested to see a successful, repeatable experiment based on creationist science that cant be explained by "standard" science Quantum fluctuations may have been tested but what created them has never been questioned... it can't be questioned and will never be questioned because to question it would present cosmologists with the very same infinite regressive loop which they have been using to undermine the creationist theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0742Sheff Posted October 29, 2011 Author Share Posted October 29, 2011 Time is a product of this Universe. It cannot have existed when the Universe did not. Because it's a product of the Universe. You might as well ask why South Yorkshire couldn't exist before Yorkshire did. The question is senseless. Isn't it only senseless due to no one knowing the answer? A bit like early man who must have thought it was senseless to wonder about the sun as they had no grasp of what it was. I bet one or two of those also looked up and wondered 'what' 'why' etc. The layman's understanding of "theory" is that it's just something someone thought up once. In science, that's referred to as a speculation or conjecture, and doesn't even become a hypothesis until it's formally presented and logically consistent. Scientists won't call anything a Theory until there is convincing evidence that it's true. So in a way it does make sense. A scientific theory already has solid, convincing evidence behind it. A layman's theory may well not have any evidence at all behind it - in fact there could very well be evidence against it that the layman isn't aware of. So the big bang 'theory' has convincing evidence that it happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 Ok I'll have another try. If something has existed forever why does there have to be a cause for this state? Better question Jim Sadly, I'm too far gone to respond sensibly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucifer Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 I was watching a program the other day and, during it, they showed a cross cut section of a meteorite. They found the usual stuff in there such as Iron and Carbon but they also found amino acids. Since amino acids are thought to have been the very first building blocks of all life on Earth, i was wondering if we might have actually arrived on a comet and are in fact, to a certain extent, aliens on this planet. Would we have the right to claim this is our planet if an alien race were to land here in the future? Maybe you have landed !. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0742Sheff Posted October 29, 2011 Author Share Posted October 29, 2011 Maybe you have landed !. Maybe you have something to add to the thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucifer Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 Maybe you have something to add to the thread? Do you believe everything on television and never do any research yourself. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 Do you believe everything on television and never do any research yourself. ? Would you prefer him to believe everything he reads and never do any research himself? Or believe everything he googles and never do any research himself? Maybe you'd prefer him to believe everything he's told and never do any research himself? Or perhaps you'd prefer him to disregard each of the above, close the thread and simply accept that there is no definitive reason for anyone to accept re-searchable information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.