No more absurd than any utterance concerning a creator. At least the something-out-of-nothing-for-no-reason argument is not posited as gospel truth by scientists and astronomers. There are some bits of supporting evidence for this very early conjecture.
@@jasperkloosterman747 As I said, this is not an established fact yet because there is only very little real-world data to support it. In quantum physics, it is hypothetically possible for charged particles and their companion anti-particles to be ripped from the quantum vacuum if there are very strong electrical fields. At this point in the progress of research there is little more than guesswork based on very preliminary understanding of quantum physics. This is why scientists do not claim this as "gospel truth" yet, as it were. They are perfectly willing, unlike fundamentalist bible-worshippers, to admit that they don't know for sure. No one at all can make any claim at all about a possible "reason" why all this stuff is here because no one knows. By the way, not being a physicist myself, any and all info I have is also available to you at the public library. Lawrence Krauss's books are a starting place.
@ jasperkloosterman747 Your defense of something out of nothing is totally typical of how evolutionary defense works. You say things like “There are bits of supporting evidence [and there is zero btw] for this very early conjecture”. Bits? Conjecture? It is noteworthy that you don’t even allude to any so-called bits of evidence for something out of nothing. You admit there’s no real world data. You talk about what is hypothetical. In other words in your posts, you are operating on faith and not on facts. Easily observable historical scientific facts. Facts. Creationists talk about observable scientific data. Evolution believes prefer to wave away observable scientific data and cling to theories so they can go on believing that they get to be their own puny, little gods. There is certainly no lack of data! We don’t need bits of this and conjectures, and a hypothesis. What does the real data show? Throughout history no one has ever seen anything come from nothing. The laws of thermodynamics and physics make it impossible. Impossible. it defies common sense. But then so does evolution in general. And I have had people defending evolution to tell me not to listen to my common sense! Wake up. Come out of pseudo science, and find out who you really are. And don’t bother to tell me that something comes from nothing based on hypotheticals that fly in the face of easily observable scientific truths. Everywhere. All the time. You think you are not religious, but you are. Profoundly so. You believe in the religion of evolution because you put your faith in what is not seen and what is even impossible. Another easily observable scientific fact is that no outcome is greater than its cause. This universe didn’t just pop into existence. It is an outcome that needs an incredible cause. But that’s common sense, which evolution defenders like to dismiss. Wake up. Find out who you really
So you are upset that those of us that believe the Bible to be true and realize the complexity of creation and life are absurd to believe in an intellegent designer and builder? Have you ever witnessed anything designing and forming itself? Science is what we know what can we observe and test?
Amen. Spike it has been a real privilege to hear you and over the years since you first made your original documentary on the Solar system, I have shared this video hundreds of times. That video and the consequent ones have been a blessing to so many people. Thankyou for being such a faithful servant. Amen
Spike Psarris hasn't changed a bit. He is still using his old witch doctor tricks. He takes evidence of evolution and explains it in reverse so that it appears to be evidence of creation. People who want easy answers fall for it, because real science has to take the hard way of finding answers that are difficult to understand, while creationists can simply attribute everything to god's creation and it's job done.
It’s how one interprets the same evidence…as in through which lens? An evolutionary lens or a biblical one. It’s not ‘witch doctor’ stuff. The biblical lens has a rational for the evidence we see. It fits. The evolutionary lens has too many unexplained circumstances in which case we then say, ‘we don’t know, just yet why (so and so) is so.’
Creationists and evolutionists both look at the same evidence through different lenses. It's just that we are right because we have a credible cause (God, an infinite intelligence and power) and you are wrong because you have no credible cause, believing that literally nothing made everything. Neither can be proven scientifically, but one is blind. Without God the world cannot make sense.
Hi. Initially in Genesis 1:3 God call for the source of light (singular) to appear, which gave light on the earth. In Genesis 1:14 God made lights (plural) which are the sun, moon, stars, etc. A simple analogy would probably be lighting a single match which would be akin to Genesis 1:3, then using that match to start multiple fires which would represent the sun, moon, stars Genesis 1:14. Hope that helps.
@@Loading....99.99 , I think it’s hilarious how you creationists try to make sense out of nonsense. Without the sun, there is no plant life, oceans are frozen solid, the earth is nothing but a block of ice.
@@davidgardner863 are you aware that light can exist without a source? In my previous comment i said that according to Genesis, God made the 'initial light' (which does not require a source). Afterwards he made sources for the lights, sun, stars, etc.
@@davidgardner863 compare an omnipotent creator to the alternative which says that the universe creating itself out of nothing for no reason, AKA Big Bang... You be the judge of which is magic, or rather imagination.
The question here is not if God created the universe, but when. Nothing he says is evidence for a 6000 year old creation vs. a 14 billion year old creation. The evidence for a universe 13.8 billion years old or older is overwhelming and undeniable.
the presenter made the point very clear that the universe is not billions of years by presenting details regarding the receding of the moon, active planetary cores, etc
@@Loading....99.99 , Psarris has a BS degree in electrical engineering, not astronomy, not cosmology, not astrophysics. He didn’t give any of the details you mentioned. He presented a multiverse as accepted fact by the scientific community using clips from old sci-fi movies and TV shows, and papers from individuals and that are only hypothesis, far from accepted theory. He referred to the Big Bang as an explosion rather than an expansion which gives his audience the wrong impression of what it is and who’s to say that that isn’t the way God created the universe? The Big Bang is not the final word anyway. He doesn’t mention anything about the possible effects of dark matter and dark energy which is an ongoing area of research.
@@davidgardner863have you seen the UM(Universal Model)? It gives good reasons from the scientific literature to why things may not be all that they are cracked up to be in modern science. One such is that silica, and quartz make up a large part of the earths crust and a part of the composition of many rocks. This is an interesting one as we know that when silica is heated to melting, it becomes amorphous and no longer has it's normal crystalline structure. If things were as they are said to be, most granite, sandstone and others should have amorphous silica otherwise known as glass, yet they do not. Another is the profit incentive for scientists to toss out findings to keep their jobs and to continue to get grants and funding. I know that this does directly answer your question, but does address some of the fundamentals of proposed planet formation. Another to look into would be the water on planet earth and how it got here. At the same time Barry Bickmore also makes some good points as well on His blog on some of the issues with the UM. It gives both sides of the argument, and I think both are worth a good read. Just a thought, Sincerely, JS
The real Old Testament was written in Hebrew. Completed about 1900 years before King James was born. The real New Testament was written in Koine Greek. About 1500 years before King James was born.
I guess you have never heard Kent Hovind... He once stated that he believed that the KJV could be used to correct the Hebrew and Greek. I had just spent 2 years learning Hebrew and had been learning Greek for about 3 or 4 months So yeah, Kent lost me that day because I just couldn't comprehend the hubris behind such a remark.
@@pastorart1974 whatchu talkin'bout, Willis? Everyone knows that the language spoken by god himself (and it has to be a man) in heaven is Elizabethan English. The ancient scribes here on earth heard his dictation, translated it in their heads, and wrote it down in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic or whichever. --- I follow a different religious orientation, the goddess. My fave is Astarte, Canaanite god of fertility, love and...wait for it.......war" Read her holy scripture "Skinny Legs and All" by Tom Robbins. Lo, I say unto thee, as the holy bumper sticker proclaimeth, "God is coming...and She is pissed!"
@@sergent40 KH doesn't care what he says as long as you keep sending in the donations. He is not as wealthy as other crackpot televangelists because of a tax fraud conviction and prison time he did, so he needs the cash.
