User:Ace McWicked/Philip J. Rayment - Liar and Hypocrite

Un-fucking-believable bullshit from a consummate liar. i.e Just another creationist. Don't even fucking attempt to read this shit - it'll only upset you.

Quantum Foam

The BigBang theory doesnt say that things started from nothing. The cause I see mentioned most is fluctuations in quantum foam (not gonna try explaining that - seek a particle physisist). Some consider the total energy in the Universe to be 0, once you add and subtract forces, so to start it may have taken very little energy ^{the fearsome}Hamster 05:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

But where did the quantum foam come from? And where did the "very little energy" come from? --TimS 05:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it the discussions are about an n-dimensional framework, which allows for quantum effects. Those quantum effects result in matched subatomic particles popping into and out of existance. A disturbance may have resulted in the creation (or unfolding) and expansion of a 4 dimensional space time structure which has a net-energy value of 0. Hamster 06:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

But where did god come from Tim? --The Ghost of Horace 06:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

God is not bound by natural laws. He didn't "come from" anything. He exists outside of time, and explains his own existence. --TimS 06:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

well, not bound by and outside of the laws of this universe , perhaps he lives in another Universe where he holds down a job , and watches television and all that. What happened to his wife anyway. She was in the old Jewish writings ? ^inquisitive Hamster 06:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the quantum foam is not bound by natural laws. Maybe it didn't "come from" anything. Maybe it exists outside time, and explains its own existence. --The Ghost of Horace 07:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That would at least be admitting the need for something supernatural. For some reason I doubt that is what they are claiming. --TimS 07:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Err... no. I was attempting to draw attention to your own suggestion that the almighty 'didn't "come from" anything'. The argument that god is the "uncaused cause" is the most pathetic piece of religionist dissembling that ever was. It makes me weep for the stupidity that religion brings to the world. By the way, and on a totally unrelated subject, did you know that my dog Crusher is not bound by the laws of the universe either? --The Ghost of Horace 08:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The argument that god is the "uncaused cause" is the most pathetic piece of religionist dissembling that ever was. Because...?

Some Big Bang apologists do claim that the Big Bang came from something, but others say it came from nothing:

The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere. —Explaining Alan Guth's view

Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. ...Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. —

...we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific. —Paul Davies

[The Big Bang] asserts that some 12-15 billion years ago there was a suddenly expansion and explosion of all matter and energy out of an original point - out of literally nothing... —

Philip J. Rayment 08:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

1. All things need a cause.

2. Therefore the universe needs a cause.

3. Therefore there must be a god who caused the universe (after all, what else could it be?)

4. But if all things need a cause then what caused god?

5. All things except god need a cause.

6. Ooh, what a dazzling argument!

7. [Pause for applause and then exit, stage right].

8. Really, truly pathetic. An argument with no intellectual rigor whatsoever, constructed purely of wishful thinking and nonsense. --The Ghost of Horace 09:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

1. All things need a cause

2. There is no God

3. Therefore God did not cause the universe.

4. But then what caused the universe?

5. The universe just popped into existence out of nothing!

6. WIN!!! Take that you creationists!!!!

7. Your argument is no better than the one that you made up for us. --TimS 21:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. First of all, your first premise is lifted from the creationist argument. It represents a piece of transparent question begging. The only reason it is there is so that you can ask "But then what caused the universe?" in question 4. The real question is: Does the universe require a cause in the same way that everyday events require causes? I would have thought that the universe is so unique that it requires some careful thought before assuming that it is subject to the same rules of causation that result in spillage when I knock a glass of milk off the kitchen bench onto the floor. Also, as has been pointed out below, quantum physics tells us some strange things about the universe and the possibilities of matter popping into existence without apparent cause. I suggest that we look into them thoroughly before making up magical bearded men in the sky to explain things. Furthermore, even in the rather silly form proposed by you, the anti-creationist argument has one significant advantage over the creationist argument: It doesn't take the further enormous (and utterly redundant step) of requiring the existence of a god. Why have a god pop into existence in order to, in turn, magically conjure up the universe? Simpler to just have the universe pop into existence. --The Ghost of Horace 23:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Pursued by a bear? Theresa Wilson 10:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yawn. You've already used those quotes before. Don't you at least have NEW ones? (PS: Nice use of a creationist escape hatch, Timmy!. Sterile 12:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk about special pleading! My god doesn't need a cause because it IS a cause because the bible says so! Teh Terrible Asp 17:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This is actually something I wanted to mention yesterday. The Big Bang coming "out of nothing" argument, as PJR states it, is a little misleading. Out of nothing doesn't mean out of a zero state. Take for example virtual particles. They pop in and out of existence seemingly "out of nothing" but that's not the whole story. The vacuum of space does have an energy level of sorts, like the quantum foam mentioned. Matter and anti-matter particles pop in and out of existence by "borrowing" energy from the universes energy state at large. They immediately annihilate each other thereby returning the borrowed energy, as per the first law of thermodynamics. So while it seems to be out of nothing it is in fact not the case. Incidentally this is how Stephen Hawking explained how black holes would eventually disappear through Hawking Radiation. When the virtual particles pop into existence on the event horizon, one particle is sucked into the black hole while the other gets free. In order to return the energy, the black hole must "repay" with some of its own energy. Ace McWicked 19:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

you do need a space time framework to have fluctations in. Thats where some of the discussions are interesting, was there in fact NOTHING at the start or was there some form of spacetime even if it was all folded up. Hamster 19:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

AS I understand (!) it, we cannot, not just "using known technology etc" but by definition can never, know what the state of the universe was (even that word "was" is suspect) in the first Planck unit of time of its existence. (First & existence are also suspect) Theresa Wilson 20:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

One theory is that our known universe was created through a Quantum Phase Transition. The vacuum energy of the universe isn't its true state. Everything always aims for the lowest energy state possible, per the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Imagine a ball rolling in a steep sided valley. As the valley is steep the ball rolls up and down the sides quickly. Next to this valley is a much shallower one which requires lower energy for the ball the roll up and down. The ball cannot pitch itself over the lip of the steep sided valley to lower its energy state. Now, in the quantum world, something funny happens. The ball, through an effect known as "Quantum Tunnelling", "tunnels" through the sides of the steep valley into the shallower, lower energy valley. Quantum tunnelling has been observed (look it up) and if the quantum state of the universe went through this process it would completely remake the entire universe in an instant - that is a Quantum Phase Transition. I probably didn't explain that very well but there is lot of literature out there. Ace McWicked 20:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that the trouble is that the universe is (at least) 4 dimensional and "before" it existed, there was no time for existence to exist in. What was the tunneling in if there was no space, time or laws thereof? It's all rather strange & one can see why the weak minded require "God" to sort it for them^{(gratuitous insult free of charge)}. Theresa Wilson 20:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

There could have been time before the tunnelling. The Phase Transition remade the universe, effectivly hitting restart. That said, its just one theory. Ace McWicked 21:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This coming from people who are always demanding that everything be falsifiable... --TimS 21:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Um yeah. You do realise we are just discussing theories and not actually making statements of fact? Ace McWicked 21:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Why aren't you as critical of this unfalsifiable stuff as you are of creationist ideas? --TimS 21:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Because no one is stating these ideas as "fact". Just stating them as possiblities that need further investigation. If upon investigation they turn out to be untenable, they'll be dumped. Ace McWicked 21:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

These ideas don't contradict everything we already know or violate any known laws. They are scientifically plausible, or at very least, possible. Jaxe 21:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Because things pop into existence out of nothing all the time, and doing so doesn't contradict what we already know... --TimS 21:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

To be fair Jaxe, some quantum physics does in fact violate physical laws as we know them but quantum weirdness has been observed nonetheless. Anyways, my above comment to Tim stands. Also Tim, as stated above, it isn't popping out of 'nothing". Read the above again. Ace McWicked 21:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

And when people say that the universe shows evidence of design, without making any claims of fact about how that may have happened, people shout them down, and shun them from the scientific community. --TimS 21:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Quantum Physics, and its properties have been observed, not just speculated, hence conclusions, writ large, are drawn from the actual physical observation. Ace McWicked 21:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

[1] (The captcha to post this link was 'popping though') Jaxe 21:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Really, truly pathetic. An argument with no intellectual rigor whatsoever, constructed purely of wishful thinking and nonsense. I agree. So why did you propose it? It's not the argument put by Christians; it's your corrupted version of it. The Christian (or theistic) argument starts with "All thing that began need a cause". Obviously if something didn't begin, there need not be a cause. The universe needs a cause because it began. God doesn't because He didn't begin (He exists outside of time, and had no beginning). It's not a valid debating tactic to criticise a straw-man argument.

The real question is: Does the universe require a cause in the same way that everyday events require causes? Fair enough question, but as everything else we know of that begain requires a cause, then this should be assumed for the universe also unless there is good reason not to.

I suggest that we look into them thoroughly before making up magical bearded men in the sky to explain things. God is not "magical"; that is, He doesn't achieve His goals by invoking foreign powers through incantations. The power is His own. This has been explained before, but atheists persist in using this incorrect terminology simply because of its rhetorical power, but it actually serves to undermine your credibility. Further, how is invoking a Being who has the power to create the universe any less sensible than saying that a principle (cause and effect) that has no known exception doesn't apply in one special case? You essentially accuse Christians of special pleading by invoking God, then engage in your own special pleading!

...the anti-creationist argument has one significant advantage over the creationist argument: It doesn't take the further enormous (and utterly redundant step) of requiring the existence of a god. It is only "utterly redundant" if your alternative ad hoc explanation is correct. As your explanation has no evidence, proposing God is at least as sensible.

Why have a god pop into existence... But we don't! That is your straw-man.

The Big Bang coming "out of nothing" argument, as PJR states it, is a little misleading. Out of nothing doesn't mean out of a zero state. I would say that your comment is misleading. I've already acknowledged that some Big Bang apologists do argue that it's not actually out of nothing, but the ones I quoted clearly state—even stress—that it's out of nothing.

...one can see why the weak minded require "God" to sort it for them^{(gratuitous insult free of charge)} In other words, there is good reason for proposing God, but as an atheist that answer is unacceptable, so you reject it and insult those who think differently.

Because no one is stating these ideas as "fact". Just stating them as possiblities that need further investigation. The problem is that you are invoking these "possibilities" in order to reject an alternative possible explanation (God).

These ideas don't contradict everything we already know or violate any known laws. Are you sure about that? Some of the explanations I've read (and Theresa's comment of 20:16, 25 February possibly alludes to this), claim that the scientific laws break down in the first few moments of the universe. Plus we already know that things that have a beginning have a cause, and the Big Bang does contradict that. The excuse is that this is a special case. Okay, "special case" means that it doesn't agree with what we already know. Oops, I've just read Ace's next comment where he admits that some of this does break known laws.

some quantum physics does in fact violate physical laws as we know them ... Yet when creationists propose that decay rates have changed, we are accused of suggesting that the laws of physics have changed, as though that is not something we are allowed to do. Obviously (from many other examples also), creationists are not allowed to, but materialists are. The hypocrisy is astounding.

Also Tim, as stated above, it isn't popping out of 'nothing". Read the above again. So are you "stating these ideas as 'fact'", or "Just stating them as possiblities that need further investigation."?

Philip J. Rayment 02:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I nearly overlooked one:

Yawn. You've already used those quotes before. This is a typical anticreationist tactic: Rather than refute the claims or evidence, bring up irrelevancies like the source always being the same, or (in this case) that I've used the quotes before. SO WHAT? All this shows is that you've no better answer, so are trying to divert attention by saying something that has the superficial appearance of a rebuttal. What a lousy way to argue! Not only that, but you are wrong! I have used the Alan Guth quote before, but not the others! This demonstrates another typical anticreationist tactic: make a claim without actually bothering to ensure that it's correct! This makes your job easy; throw out various unsubstantiated accusations and claims, thereby causing your opponent to waste time refuting them. How easy it is to be an anticreationist! (And apologies to the few who do actually spend time checking their claims.)

Philip J. Rayment 02:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yawn. You can't produce a shred of evidence of creationism, ergo your triumphant chest-thumping is boring. I can't even say "so what?" because there's nothing to say "so what?" to. You use a popular press quote to try to refute all of the Big Bang--What a lousy way to argue! Besides, the refutation is in the article. You've uber-small-i-icized them because they cause you such cognitive dissonance, but you've not refuted those quotes, which is why you can't eliminate them. Please, try harder Philip. Sterile 03:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. Please explain more about the nature of "God's power." OK, he doesn't do the Harry Potter thing, but what does he do? Think things into being? Breathe on them? Please explain the mechanism. Sterile 03:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

theres a significant difference between saying that in the first nanoseconds of the BigBang expansion that the currently known laws of physics did not apply (mainly because space time was being created) and that after that time the laws (approx when the Higgs field gets turned on) are invarient and positing a change in an existing world to fit large decay values which would have melted the planet unless natural law was altered or suspended. Changing decay rates requires changes to several base constants which would cause for example , atoms to dissolve into particle clouds. Hamster 04:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If there was a way to prove one of the possible causes of the BigBang (quantum foam fluctuations - check the video ) then its turtles all the way down :) Hamster 05:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You can't produce a shred of evidence of creationism... Someone's in denial.

You use a popular press quote to try to refute all of the Big Bang... No, I used several quotes, and I used them not to refute all the Big Bang, but to refute the claim that it's not claimed to be something from nothing.

What a lousy way to argue! Misrepresenting what I'm saying? Yes, you're right.

Besides, the refutation is in the article. What refutation in which article?

God hasn't explained the mechanism in any detail, so I can't tell you much about it.

Changing decay rates requires changes to several base constants which would cause for example , atoms to dissolve into particle clouds. Yet decay rates have been observed to change.

If there was a way to prove one of the possible causes of the BigBang (quantum foam fluctuations - check the video ) then its turtles all the way down Showing that a postulated cause is possible doesn't prove that it did happen that way.

Philip J. Rayment 08:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Doctors (half section where it deals with cosmology

Philip, how many times must this be explained to you! The Big Bang was not some miracle event that was just made up as a fudge factor. It wasn't a "nothing from something" and is backed up by observations and the background radiation. Learn to Learn! Ace McWicked 19:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've quoted various sources which describe it as something from nothing, showing that that is what at least some believe, even if not all. Yes, it is backed by observations, but the observations don't fit it all that well, and it therefore requires the fudge factors of dark energy and dark matter. Background radiation of a specific value was predicted, and background radiation was indeed subsequently discovered... of a different value! So it's debatable whether that really counts as a fulfilled prediction. Philip J. Rayment 05:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You are playing a semantic game. Any cosmologist worth their salt knows that it isn't from nothing. You don't get something from nothing (unless God does it). Nothing in this instance means something we haven't seen and can't quantify (yet - hence experiments like the LHC). It isn't "nothing". No matter how many quotes you misunderstand, it is never considered nothing. Ace McWicked 05:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

for it to be science it must be natural evidence. Quantum foam is a possible source of big bang material. Hamster 06:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

heres a paper of complex specified information http://www-lmmb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/dembski/specified.complexity.html Hamster 06:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You are playing a semantic game. Any cosmologist worth their salt knows that it isn't from nothing. Yeah, well, I never said these secular cosmologists who say this were worth their salt, did I? :-)

You don't get something from nothing ... I know, that's why the Big Bang is a load of malarky!

Nothing in this instance means something we haven't seen and can't quantify... Oh, I see. Something for which there is no evidence, so is speculation, not science. Something like, ummm, God! We haven't seen Him (ignoring Jesus for the moment), and can't quantify Him—fits the bill, I'd say!

It isn't "nothing". You're right—God isn't nothing!

No matter how many quotes you misunderstand, it is never considered nothing. Yet you've not shown how I've misunderstood all those quotes which say it's nothing, sometimes emphatically!

for it to be science it must be natural evidence. In other words, arbitrarily rule out a possible explanation for ideological reasons.

Philip J. Rayment 09:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

you're backsliding, its NOT arbitrary and ideological ? well I would not use that word since science defines itself as methodological nauralism. Can you outline how a researcher can prove supernatural events ? that requires showing what occured and when, and evidence of the supernatural source ? That still leaves proving what supernatual source it was ? A hint "complex specified information' wont do it, thats been shown to be wrong. Hamster 15:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yet you've not shown how I've misunderstood all those quotes which say it's nothing You just have Philip in the above by misunderstanding the Big Bang. I have explained this too you before but you are ignoring it. There wasn't nothing before the Big Bang, it came from something. Something our physics hasn't explained yet - hence experiments like the LHC. You ignored my comments and willfully misunderstood. You are a lying, intellectually stunted man. I have no time for your willful ignorance in the face of something that easy to understand and has been explained to you, by me, before. Ace McWicked 16:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

...science defines itself as methodological nauralism. Science cannot define itself. "Science" is defined by people, and they often include methodological naturalism in the definition, but scientists often emply philosophical naturalism.

Can you outline how a researcher can prove supernatural events ? That's not a valid question. Science can't prove anything; it can only disprove. Further, is your question about proving the event, or the cause of the event? And when you have the question worded properly and fairly, can you answer it from the point of view of naturalism?

A hint "complex specified information' wont do it, thats been shown to be wrong. Argued to be wrong is more likely.

You just have Philip in the above by misunderstanding the Big Bang. You're begging the question of whether I have misunderstood.

I have explained this too you before but you are ignoring it. No, I have replied, and you are ignoring (not addressing) much of my reply.

There wasn't nothing before the Big Bang, it came from something. So you say, but my quotes show that others have a different view. Simply reasserting your own view does not make your view correct.

You ignored my comments and willfully misunderstood. You are a lying, intellectually stunted man. You are now attributing motive to me, which is getting into dangerous (in the sense of you running a great risk of being wrong, given that you can't read my mind) territory. You are also running a risk of being blocked for calling me a liar. More response to come in the section below.

Philip J. Rayment 01:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

more specifically

I know, that's why the Big Bang is a load of malarky! The Big Bang does not propose something from nothing. If knew anything about it save a few quotes you trot out (which you admit might be from cosmologist who are not worth their salt) and what is quoted on CMI then you would know that no-one believes that the Big Bang came from nothing (although is often said, "nothing" can mean from a quantum foam, or a singularity or even spawning off from another universe. Nothing in this sense means there was no time nor did our physical laws exist). It definitely came from something and everyone knows this. You spout off rubbish without actually knowing a thing about it! If you did you wouldn't speak such nonsense. Perhaps if you studied up on Quantum Mechanics you would realise that particles can pop in and out of exsitence, disappear and materialise in another location but it is not from nothing though it might appear so and it is, and has been, demonstrable.
Oh, I see. Something for which there is no evidence, so is speculation, not science. Something like, ummm, God! We haven't seen Him (ignoring Jesus for the moment), and can't quantify Him—fits the bill, I'd say! So your argument comes down to the God of gaps then? Science doesn't know yet so it must be God? This is why Creation Science is a load of bollocks. Real science goes like this - "We can be fairly sure the Big Bang happened through our observations but we don't know how the Big Bang happened so lets build a 27km long tunnel 100 metres below the Franco-Swiss border. Then we'll build the biggest, most powerful and most ambitious piece of scientific machinery ever constructed to test our predictions. Using this we can also test our predictions concerning dark matter and other dimensions." That is how science works Philip, not by finding a gap in knowledge and injecting god into it. If the LHC finds nothing then it's back to the drawing board. It is insulting to me as someone who has studied cosmology, albeit as an amatuer, for over 10 years to have someone like you come along and lay his absolute ignorance down as if it is a badge of honour. I urge to read up on the Big Bang, Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Entanglement etc etc so you don't look like such an ingnorant fool. the science is there and most of it is demonstrable, sound and matches observation and prediction. Before you lay the ad hom card please note that I am trying to educate you, not attack you. Ace McWicked 18:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The Big Bang does not propose something from nothing. Ho hum. Answered that already.

If knew anything about it save a few quotes you trot out... And which you dismiss out of hand.

...(which you admit might be from cosmologist who are not worth their salt)... Only humorously, and on the grounds that they are secular. On the contrary, one of the quotes is relating the views of one of the leading designers of the Big Bang. In terms of Big Bang cosmology, Guth is very much worth his salt, and you cannot dismiss his views as worthless.

...you would know that no-one believes that the Big Bang came from nothing... Except that I provided quotes to the contrary, which you've simply dismissed for no valid reason.

It definitely came from something and everyone knows this. First, this is not what many people believe, as the quotes show. Second, how do they "know" it, as distinct from believe it? Where is the hard evidence?

Perhaps if you studied up on Quantum Mechanics you would realise that particles can pop in and out of exsitence, disappear and materialise in another location but it is not from nothing... Interesting. I've had people defend the Big Bang argument that it came from nothing on the grounds that quantum mechanics supposedly shows that particles can come from nothing. Here you say that they can pop into existence, which seems to be saying the same thing. Yet you then say that they are not coming from nothing. So what are they coming from if not from nothing? If they came from another universe, then they already existed. If they came from a singularity, then they came from nothing, as a singularity is a fancy word for nothing: "something" that has zero dimensions.

So your argument comes down to the God of gaps then? Can I call you an ignorant liar now? After all, you've apparently failed to comprehend the point that I was making, that "God" fits your description. If my argument is a God-of-the-gaps argument, then so is your argument about particles that "we haven't seen and can't quantify". So why can a God-of-the-gaps argument be rejected, but a "something-we-haven't-seen-and-can't-quantify-of-the-gaps" argument is okay?

Science doesn't know yet so it must be God? Science doesn't know yet so it must be "something we haven't seen and can't quantify"?

This is why Creation Science is a load of bollocks. No, this is why materialism is a load of bollocks—because it proposes things that are just as untestable as God, but pretends that one is not science and the other is, on the grounds of testability!

Real science goes like this - "We can be fairly sure the Big Bang happened through our observations... Not really. There's major problems with the Big Bang.

If the LHC finds nothing then it's back to the drawing board. So the gap remains unfilled. The secular explanation has failed, but the alternative explanation is not even considered.

It is insulting to me as someone who has studied cosmology, albeit as an amatuer, for over 10 years to have someone like you come along and lay his absolute ignorance down as if it is a badge of honour. Then how do you think I feel? I've studied creation for over 30 years, only to have someone like you come along and lay down his own biased (i.e. refuse to even seriously consider my views) views down as if they are a badge of honour.

I urge to read up on the Big Bang, Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Entanglement etc etc so you don't look like such an ingnorant fool. Perhaps you should do that too, and not just from people who agree with you, in order that you don't look a fool for simply dismissing views that you don't agree with.

Before you lay the ad hom card please note that I am trying to educate you, not attack you. And I can see that there is a genuine attempt to educate. Yet there is also ad hominem in there, such as calling me a liar and ignorant.

Philip J. Rayment 01:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you still doling out that one sentence from the cover of a magazine as the Big Bang being something from nothing? Do you have any other quotes, or even better, a reference to a physics book or a literature review? It's quite underwhelming. Sterile 02:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Your vile ignorance and obvious lack of knowledge on this subject caused me such aggression I had to take 5mg of Valium in order to respond calmly. I am not known for my patience and I am very high strung. Thankfully my doctor knows this hence my perscription.

Ho hum. Answered that already No, you haven't. If you had done any reading on the topic you would know that nothing, in this sense, means that our universe before the big bang was nothing - there was no universe. A singularity is not nothing for example.

And which you dismiss out of hand... I did not dismiss them in the slightest, I answered, attempted to clarify, that no-one believes the universe came from nothing, the only response you can give - the seeming beadth of your knowledge on the topic is these quotes. READ and learn what the context and meaning surrounds such quotes.

Guth is very much worth his salt, and you cannot dismiss his views as worthless. Here is Guth view which shows he doesn't think the big bang came from nothing - "Alan Guth's main beliefs about the universe are that it definitely has a beginning and that it is just one of many universes that came into existence. Inflation never ends, but keeps expanding at an exponential rate, meaning that it doubles in very short increments much less than one second. Universes keep being created all the time as bubbles within the inflation process. The entire cosmos was created by quantum fluctuations from nothingness. While the concept of a universe being created from nothing sounds improbable, it is perfectly consistent with the laws of conservation of energy because its total energy value is zero". His position is that our universe was nothing but it was created by quantum fluctuations which is not nothing in the sense you attibute to it. He also believes - "The big bang of the universe is actually similar to cell division in biology, since new universes are continuously formed. However, inflation always wipes out the circumstances of the beginning of the particular universe." Meaning he didn't believe the universe came from nothing but it would always appear as if from nothing. Clearly his opinion is the new universes are formed from other universes. This would be easy for you to find out if you opened a book! Also Alan Guth was the first one to propose Inflation Theory which solves the so called Horizon Problem and also proposes the universe was created through a Quantum Phase Transition. Far from Guth actually believing the Universe was created from nothing he believes the universe was created by something. You'll happily trot out quotes from him but then not actually do the reading about what he really believes which goes against everything you have so far attributed to him!

Where is the hard evidence? Something the LHC was built for.

Interesting. I've had people defend the Big Bang argument that it came from nothing on the grounds that quantum mechanics supposedly shows that particles can come from nothing. Again, as I have aleady explained particles do not come from nothing! The vacuum has an energy state and virtual particles (matter and anti-matter) borrow energy from the vacuum and pop into exsistence and immediatly annihilate themselves, thereby returning the energy back to the vacuum. This is how Hawking Radiation proposes black holes eventually disappear. When a virtual particle pops up nea a black hole, one particle falls into event horizon and the other is free. The black hole must repay the vacuum energy with its own energy.

because it proposes things that are just as untestable as God, but pretends that one is not science It is testable! READ PHILIP! READ! Go to CERN and tell them it isn't testable! Just dismantle all the particle accelerators because they, in you opinion, are obviously a waste of time.

There's major problems with the Big Bang. Such as?

So the gap remains unfilled. The secular explanation has failed, but the alternative explanation is not even considered. Only because there is no test for God (as of yet)!

Perhaps you should do that too, and not just from people who agree with you, in order that you don't look a fool for simply dismissing views that you don't agree with. I am reading your gibberish aren't I?

You have obviously not looked any further than your quotes and CMI etc. Search for the material Philip, it is all there. Go to the library and get read some Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose, Fred Adams etc because you ae ignorant of what you speak to anyone else it looks like abject stupidity on your part. Ace McWicked 03:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really. There's major problems with the Big Bang. Would you elaborate on just what they are ? Its already been stated that nothing within about 10^-43 seconds of the event is accessible and why. You have also been told often that a hole in a hypothesis does not open the door to a christian god or any god for that matter, it merely causes a revision of the hypothesis or the creation of a new one The current Big Bang theory is one explanation that has survived some challanges , if the Higgs boson is not found , or other unexpected particles are found a bunch of physicists go back to their chalkboards and try to figure out where the maths went wrong. Perhaps the Universe is more complex than the current model requires. Hamster 03:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

But there are other applications - finding other dimensions, dark matter. Or just giving up, saying god did it and going home. Ace McWicked 03:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

A hint "complex specified information' wont do it, thats been shown to be wrong. Argued to be wrong is more likely. demonstrated to be wrong actually. The computer program that generates increasing complexity that meets the definition given by Dembski is in the link I have posted several times. Hamster 03:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

science CAN prove some things, like if a given person has a social disease, if a substance found is an explosive or just jelly , did a magnetic field exist, did an electric current flow , etc. Straightforward factual information. what it does not prove is the theories that explain those facts Hamster 04:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you still doling out that one sentence from the cover of a magazine as the Big Bang being something from nothing? Do you have any other quotes You know I have, as you replied to my post in which I had others.

No, you haven't. If you had done any reading on the topic ... Which I obviously have.

...you would know that nothing, in this sense, means that our universe before the big bang was nothing - there was no universe. That seems to be a rather creative interpretation of "nothing".

A singularity is not nothing for example. Yet you've not refuted my reasoning.

I did not dismiss them in the slightest, I answered, attempted to clarify, that no-one believes the universe came from nothing,... You contradicted the statements with your own. You did not explain how I have misread or misunderstood or misquoted them, except for now saying that "nothing" means that the universe didn't exist, an explanation that doesn't actually fit with what the quotes said.

Here is Guth view which shows he doesn't think the big bang came from nothing ... The entire cosmos was created by quantum fluctuations from nothingness. Yep, that makes it really clear that he doesn't think it came from nothing.

His position is that our universe was nothing ... How do you get that from "from nothingness"?

...he didn't believe the universe came from nothing but it would always appear as if from nothing. So you're saying that he believes something contrary to the available evidence (observation) that it came from "nothing"?

Something the LHC was built for. That doesn't answer where it is. You seem to be saying that it doesn't exist (in the sense of being known); that they are still looking for it.

Again, as I have aleady explained particles do not come from nothing! But we are not arguing over whether they do, but whether the Big Bang is believed by some to claim that they do.

It is testable! READ PHILIP! READ! Go to CERN and tell them it isn't testable! So they are creating universes? Or are they testing one detail of the hypothesis rather than the hypothesis itself? To use an analogy, someone wants to test the idea that a someone is growing marijuana under heat lamps in a basement laboratory, so they test (by reading the meter) and find that the residence has a high electricity consumption. That might support the idea, and low consumption may disprove the idea (although perhaps they have another source of power?), but they have not tested the specific claim itself. Similarly, the Collider will allow tests on particular details required by the hypothesis, but it's not testing the hypothesis itself, which is untestable, as scientists can't reproduce the Big Bang.

Such as? See for example here, or if you want more detail, try this.

Only because there is no test for God (as of yet)! You don't need to test for God to see if an explanation which requires God fits the evidence.

I am reading your gibberish aren't I? You know, I didn't assume that you wanted me to read your comments, but rather to read books and the like. Yet you equate those books with my comments! I guess I should be flattered!

You have obviously not looked any further than your quotes and CMI etc. Have you looked further than secular sources (and my comments)?

Search for the material Philip, it is all there. That's how I found the quotes: I searched.

...because you ae ignorant of what you speak to anyone else it looks like abject stupidity on your part. That's your spin. I'm "ignorant" and look stupid because I don't swallow secular claims, not because I'm actually ignorant or stupid.

Would you elaborate on just what they are ? See the links above (in this post).

You have also been told often that a hole in a hypothesis does not open the door to a christian god or any god for that matter, ... Of course I've been told, but it's never been a convincing explanation (it's usually assertion) as to why the gap has to be filled with naturalism and can't be with God.

The current Big Bang theory is one explanation that has survived some challanges , if the Higgs boson is not found , or other unexpected particles are found a bunch of physicists go back to their chalkboards and try to figure out where the maths went wrong. But still within the failing hypothesis, most likely.

Perhaps the Universe is more complex than the current model requires. Or perhaps it was created!

But there are other applications - finding other dimensions, dark matter. Or just giving up, saying god did it and going home. Or finding that there's evidence of Divine creation. Or just giving up by invoking enormous fudge factors like dark matter and dark energy. Modern science was started by creationists, and believing that we were created not only didn't cause them to give up, it was the basis for their desire to study.

demonstrated to be wrong actually. The computer program that generates increasing complexity that meets the definition given by Dembski is in the link I have posted several times. An intelligently-designed computer program? Doesn't that tell you something?

Philip J. Rayment 12:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

yes , it tells me you dont understand computer programming. (observation not attack) I could explain but if you dont know pascal or java it would be a long and tedious attempt. Failing to find the Higgs boson itself may simply extend the question of its existance. Finding that the Higgs boson is actually other unknown particles would mean a rewrite of current atomic theory, which would be a new hypothesis. The energy levels for the Higgs is known from studies and the Large Hadron collider can reach that level. Hamster 15:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

it tells me you dont understand computer programming. Perhaps you are right, if computers can be programmed without intelligent input. But I do know programming, and know that they are intelligently designed. But explain anyway, using Pascal, which I'm quite familiar with (the Borland/etc. versions of it).

Failing to find the Higgs boson itself may simply extend the question of its existance. Agreed, although that means that the hypothesis continues to be held on faith.

Philip J. Rayment 02:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This has now become like arguing with Andy Philip. You don't know a thing about the origin of the universe, Guth and his beliefs or the hypothesis of other scientists. Not one theory on the origin of the universe says it comes from nothing, not one. I challenge you to find me one that does. As to Guth here it explains how his Inflation theory proposes that a quantum flucuation caused the big bang, also here his views are quoted as -

"Many interesting concepts are implied by the inflationary theory, including "eternal inflation." By the very nature of the inflationary process, Guth believes, "once inflation begins, it never stops!" (p. 246). As time goes on, further big bangs come forth from the underlying "false vacuum" from which our universe emerged. This ongoing cosmic process eventually creates an infinite series of universes like our own, which Guth terms "pocket universes."

This false vacuum mentioned is how virtual particles are created, not from nothing as you keep stating. Then you have the nerve to say to me But we are not arguing over whether they do, but whether the Big Bang is believed by some to claim that they do. when it was you that brought them up in support of your "from nothing" view despite my repeated explanation.

That's how I found the quotes: I searched. and thats where you have stopped, found a quote that supports your view and there you stopped. Go to the library and read some cosmologly Philip.

That's your spin. I'm "ignorant" and look stupid because I don't swallow secular claims. Its got nothing to do with "not swallowing them", you look ignorant and stupid because you say that "Guth says the universe came from nothing" when even a rudimentary study on him shows the complete opposite. Ace McWicked 03:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I challenge you to find me one that does. I already have, and you've claimed that they mean things that they don't say.

As for most of the rest of your points, I have already answered them.

Philip J. Rayment 12:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I already have, and you've claimed that they mean things that they don't say. No you haven't. Where? You haven't shown me a thing, you have given one quote from Guth which I have shown (repeatedly) to not be indicitive of his views. As I have stated, not a single theory regarding the origin of the universe contends that it arose from nothing, without cause. You haven't provided anything in the way of a rebuttal. I have shown you how virtual particles arise, I have explained the singularity is not nothing (how can something infinitely dense be nothing?), I have provided links and quotes of Guth explaining inflation theory and how he believes that universes expand from others like cell division and I have given you the names of cosmologists who, if you read up on, would provide with the current theories regarding the origin of the big bang. You have provided nothing. Which is ironic considering the nature of this discussion. Ace McWicked 19:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No you haven't. Where? You haven't shown me a thing, you have given one quote from Guth... You haven't provided anything in the way of a rebuttal. Okay, I wasn't replying to you, so perhaps you didn't see the post, but look on talk:Evidence for God's existence at my post dated 08:44, 25 February. There's more than just the quote from Guth there.

how can something infinitely dense be nothing? How can something with no dimensions be something?

I will comment further on the Evidence for God's existence talk page.

Philip J. Rayment 10:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Guth Quote

As explained to Philip several times over here Alan Guth does not believe the universe came from nothing. The quote taken from the cover of a magazine is a terrible source when it is not known what Guth actually says within the article itself. Ace McWicked 20:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be a case of fallaciously conflating what "nothing" means to the Biblical Worldview with what "nothing" means to a quantum physicist. I doubt there's a chance of successfully removing the misleading summary of Guth's article, so how about explaining in this article what "nothing" meant to Guth? SallyM 20:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

See where I have linked above for a fuller description of Guth's views. Basically though it is a belief that through quantum flucuations within the vacuum (which has its own energy) pocket universe are being created from other universes through inflation. Ace McWicked 21:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that, but Mr. Rayment doesn't seem to understand. It's his Template:Enc and it's his Biblical Worldview, so I'd put my money on the quote being around longer than you are. If that is in fact the case, you should try to explain Guth's quote within the article. SallyM 21:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• "For example, Alan Guth, inventor of the inflationary model of the Big Bang, had his ideas summarised by Discover magazine: "The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada." Note: To a quantum physicist, "nothing"....

I think that would have a significantly better chance of survival. SallyM 21:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is the actual article where the quote is derived. It is clear from reading this that he does not mean nothing in the sense being used here so there is no need for this quote. Ace McWicked 21:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that this article is avalible to read by all just goes to show that Philip is not willing, at all, to read beyond CMI as, had he, he'd know that the CMI article is wrong in its attribution to Guth. Ace McWicked 21:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have read the article, and believe I understand that "nothing" is being fallaciously conflated here. Mr. Rayment apparently does not understand the difference. He will ultimately decide what stays and I believe this quote will stay. If he does decide that the quote must stay, the only other option is to try and explain it properly within the article. That or go down fighting, which you are free to do. SallyM 21:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

From the article - To the average person it might seem obvious that nothing can happen in nothing. But to a quantum physicist, nothing is, in fact, something. I have explained this to Philip over and over again. The vacuum has quantum energy, which is not nothing and, since this article was published many more tests and predictions have been carried out and fufilled. Ace McWicked 21:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

...Alan Guth does not believe the universe came from nothing. On the contrary, he does. There are several references to this in the Discovery article, such as (my underlining):

• "The primordial "stuff" of inflation, he and other cosmologists contend, is very likely a spontaneous creation, a no-strings gift that boiled out of absolutely nowhere by means of an utterly random but nonetheless scientifically possible process."
• "Start, Guth says, by imagining nothing, a pure vacuum. Be careful. Don't imagine outer space without matter in it. Imagine no space at all and no matter at all."
• "Quantum theory also holds that a vacuum, like atoms, is subject to quantum uncertainties. This means that things can materialize out of the vacuum..."
• "Theoretically, anything—a dog, a house, a planet—can pop into existence by means of this quantum quirk, which physicists call a vacuum fluctuation."
• "If a from-nothing, briefly existing molecule is absurdly unlikely, physicists reasoned, a from-nothing, 15-billion-year-old universe is vastly less likely."
• "As the early universe went along doubling every microsecond, the stuff in it doubled, too—out of nowhere."
• "It is rather fantastic to realize that the laws of physics can describe how everything was created in a random quantum fluctuation out of nothing..."

Yet we have the statement that "to a quantum physicist, nothing is, in fact, something". But what is that "something"? Especially in the light of all those references to "nothing"? There's very little explanation.

However, the article also says (my underlining):

• "Quantum theory holds that probability, not absolutes, rules any physical system. It is impossible, even in principle, to predict the behavior of any single atom; all physicists can do is predict the average properties of a large collection of atoms. Quantum theory also holds that a vacuum, like atoms, is subject to quantum uncertainties. This means that things can materialize out of the vacuum..."
• "It is rather fantastic to realize that the laws of physics can describe how everything was created in a random quantum fluctuation out of nothing..."
• "Alan Guth's inflation theory explains the creation of the universe in a way that's compatible with the laws of physics. But where did the laws of physics come from?"
• "Guth says. 'According to this view, if there is no matter, then there are no properties.' If that's true then Guth's speculations about how a universe might have started from nothing are absurd."

The article then goes on to argue that the laws of physics must be capable of existing without the presence of matter. So it seems to me that the "something" that "nothing" is, is the laws of physics. He's arguing that the laws of physics make it possible for something to come from nothing. But the only part of that "something" that exists are the laws of physics. Apart from them, it seems, "nothing" is really nothing. As such, the article's quote is accurate.

Philip J. Rayment 11:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter anyway

Philip will misunderstand it, quote-mine [deleted by Umpire] it, declare victory and spout some nonsense from CMI. He is truly a deluded, close minded bigot who is incapable of thinking, admitting where wrong (or even being wrong). I pity him as its so sad to see a mind go to waste. He'll read the article and without reading any further information anywhere else (such as finding out exactly what is meant by "quantum flucuation" for example) use his high school level education to declare it, Guth and the entire scientific body invalid. Ace McWicked 22:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You consider me a deluded, close-minded, bigot, incapable of admitting I'm wrong (even though I've done that at times), yet I don't recall you ever admitting you are wrong, and you've shown little if any evidence of being open minded. In summary, your rant is unsubstantiated insult because you've failed to convince me that you are right. I can make exactly the same accusation as you've done, about almost any critic here, and I would have as much justification for doing so as you have. There's two differences, though. One is that I don't rant like this and throw around insults like "incapable of thinking". The other is that you are right and I am wrong, of course. Philip J. Rayment 10:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

To the average person it might seem obvious that nothing can happen in nothing. But to a quantum physicist, nothing is, in fact, something. Yes, based on the text it's clear that the author intended to write a provocative title that would get readers interested. After actually reading the article, as plain as that quote makes it, "nothing" doesn't mean the same thing to Mr. Rayment as it does Mr. Quantum Physicist. Using the summary to explain Guth's work is misleading, but I do not believe that means it will be removed. I still think the only option is to explain the article with the misleading quote in situ. SallyM 12:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

My argument (in the main section; you appear to be replying to the wrong post) is not based on the summary, but on numerous comments throughout the article, which I quoted. My argument supports that the summary in the article's quote is not misleading. Philip J. Rayment 13:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This has been going on for too long now PJR - Not one origins (of the universe) theory states it all came from nothing. I asked you to find me one that states that it came from nothing. Secondly, as per your question on another page, a singularity has zero dimensions because all space and time is contained within it. The very fabric of space. There are no dimensions. Ace McWicked 18:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If by whiskey nothing, you mean something, then yes...the universe did come from nothing. SallyM 13:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ace, you have totally failed to address my comments above, in which I quote repeatedly where Guth is saying that it came from "nothing". Yes, his idea of "nothing" has, umm, interesting characteristics, but it's still "nothing". Philip J. Rayment 12:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No Philip - it is you have failed to show that the big bang came from nothing. but it's still "nothing". This just shows you do not understand Quantum Physics. Nothing is something - it is energy, the vacuum has energy, a singularity has density, Guth's interesting characteristics as you put it are the mainstream view. Something which you do not understand. It is a typical creationist strawman to say the universe comes from nothing. No one else but creationists think so. Ace McWicked 22:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No Philip - it is you have failed to show that the big bang came from nothing. On the contrary, I have shown that in my post that you still fail to address.

Nothing is something - it is energy,... Guth doesn't say that it's energy, at least in the article in question.

Guth's "interesting characteristics" as you put it are the mainstream view. Where did I indicate otherwise? That description was not suggesting anything about the acceptance of his view, but about the nature of the "something". Again, you have not addressed my comments on that, instead creating a strawman.

Something which you do not understand. Given that it was a strawman argument, you've no evidence of this.

It is a typical creationist strawman to say the universe comes from nothing. No one else but creationists think so. Yet I quote numerous non-creationists saying so! And you've yet to address that very point, beyond trying to say that "nothing = something", a contradiction in terms unless you qualify it in some way. A question for you that might help clarify matters: in the Discover article, how many different types of "vacuum" does Guth talk about?

Philip J. Rayment 01:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Guth doesn't say that it's energy, at least in the article in question. Don't be a dunce Philip, I have pointed you to numerous sources that explain Guths position on the origin of the big bang and several times I have explained how, why and where particles come from nothing. You have failed to show me a big bang theory that proposes the universe came from nothing. Guths inflation as pointed out numerous times does not suggest this. Ace McWicked 01:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

To hell with this. You are incapable. Ace McWicked 01:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

So rather than address the points I made (you didn't for example, quote me anything Guth said about the "something" being energy), and rather than answer a specific question that I asked with the hope that it might clarify matters, you instead resort to insult. It seems to me that Guth is saying that the "nothing" is really nothing in both matter and energy terms, but that there are scientific laws that allow something to come from nothing, and so the "nothing" was not truly nothing because what did exist were these scientific laws. So analogous to a pre-existing God creating the universe from nothing, pre-existing laws allowed the universe to appear from nothing. So the "something" in the "nothing = something" equation is "scientific laws". I've already explained this (even if not in this way, and perhaps not as clearly), yet, as I've pointed out several times now, you've failed to address that explanation, instead simply repeating the mantras that "nothing = something" and that I'm ignorant. There's more to it than that, but given that you've failed to address even that much, there's little point in explaining further. Philip J. Rayment 02:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

theres a couple of things in this discussion that are confusing because of the quantum physics. The term 'nothing' can have several meanings but for physics discussions 'nothing' would mean the absence of a space-time framework and higgs field. That would mean no laws of anything because there is 'nothing' for them to operate in or on. There also seem to be no quantum events happening for the same reason. One leading hypothesis is that universes bubble off the quantum foam of other universes and provide the space-time framework for the new universe. That a universe expands and fills with energy seems a rare event mathmatically, but there is no way to test this since we are limited physically to a single universe and able to see only part of it. This has all been stated before so I am not sure where the disagreement is coming from Hamster 15:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

...or physics discussions 'nothing' would mean the absence of a space-time framework and higgs field. That would mean no laws of anything because there is 'nothing' for them to operate in or on. Guth, in the article discussed earlier on this page[2], argues against this view, in the section headed "WHERE DO RULES COME FROM?"

...there is no way to test this since we are limited physically to a single universe and able to see only part of it. When creationists propose something non-testable (God), they are told that it's not science, and therefore cannot be considered. But when an evolutionist (materialist) proposes something non-testable (other universes), we are supposed to consider that a reasonable explanation.

Philip J. Rayment 03:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Repeated failure

You have failed over and over again to show me which theory contents the universe came from nothing. Ace McWicked 01:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

try here for a brief on inflation theory. The "Nothing" is a false nothing as per quantum physics. How can I argue a case if you misunderstand the fundamentals of the argument? Ace McWicked 01:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You...

are a complete fool, Philip What I posted is true - creationists have only that one magazine to support their view of the big bang despite repeated requests to show where else that position is taken. Secondly you have also failed to show where, outside the Bible, your god exsists. I pity you, what a waste you are. Ace McWicked 05:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted your reversion and subsequent edits for the following reasons:

• You have failed to address my reasons for reversion ("Revert unreferenced edits that relied totally on editor's view of creationist arguments on aSK talk pages."). Asserting that the edit was true does not refute that.
• I in fact quoted from a variety of sources; it was not "only that one magazine".
• Your "secondly" is a meaningless claim, due to poor wording (if God exists at all, it's not merely inside the Bible), but appears to refer to a discussion where I declined to answer because the question itself was nonsense. Again, you've not substantiated your claims, and resorted instead to personal abuse.
• Your edit about the Horizon problem begs the question of whether the explanation is correct. Anti-creationists claim that creationists have a "starlight problem" despite the fact that creationists have an elegant explanation, so how is creationists pointing to the Horizon problem any different?
• Creationists do not "make use of frauds such as the Piltdown Man or Archaeoraptor to denigate evolutionary theory". Rather, they make use of them to show that scientists make mistakes because they are beholden to their worldview, and therefore science is not the totally-objective enterprise it is supposed to be. And the claim was unreferenced.
• The reference to omitting mentioning hoaxes about Noah's Ark is problematic for three reasons: (1) Your source only makes passing reference to frauds involved in a couple of cases; there's not much specific there (2) The frauds were allegedly committed by people who are/were not leading creationists, and (3) these allegedly fraudulent claims were not made in peer-reviewed journals or respected science publications, as far as I know. This is in contrast to Piltdown Man which was studied and supported by some of the leading evolutionists of the day (actually around 40 years from memory) and archaeoraptor which was accepted by National Geographic, if I recall correctly. DiEb's reference to "repeated" frauds is, at best, exaggerating, given that most claims for the ark, whilst not substantiated, were not, as far as we know, fraudulent.
• The reference to weeping statues is also (a) unreferenced (the reference was for the ark claims) and (b) nothing to do with creationists, if you are talking about statues of the virgin Mary.

Philip J. Rayment 12:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

just for the record National Geographic is a popular magazine , not a peer reviewed scientific journal. archeoraptor was identified as suspect by the first couple of experianced scientists who saw it. Piltdown man was suspect before being proven false, by the scientists who investigated it. Science eventually cleans up its mistakes. Hamster 15:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because you are fine with lying to yourself Philip doesn't make it OK to lie to others. This is just a hit piece. A disgusting one at that. Ace McWicked 20:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I realise that National Geographic is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal; I didn't say it was. In fact that's why I referred to "peer-reviewed journals or respected science publications", as I believe that it fits the latter description. That some did suspect both examples as false doesn't change that others supported them because of their ideology, and in the case of Piltdown man, how long did this take? And even then, it was not because of rigorous, objective, scientific investigation, but because the fossil no longer fitted their story. Sure, science may eventually clean up its mistakes; creationism is part of that, trying to clean up the mistake of evolution.

Ace, given that you've been trying to provide argument to support your contention that I'm less than I should be, I've given you considerable latitude. But this latest comment from you is mere insult, and for that you will be blocked.

And I notice that neither of you have responded to most of the points I made. That strongly suggests that either you accept most of my reasoning in reverting the edits, or you couldn't be bothered backing up your claims.

Philip J. Rayment 23:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No Philip, it just means you are unwilling to learn so why waste my time? you haven't shown any other source except that magazine despite repeated queries. You have shown a complete lack of understanding concerning Quantum Mechanics and you are determined not to let anyone add any balance to this so again, why bother? Ace McWicked 23:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Your response comprises more insults and accusations, rather than evidence. And I've specifically said that I did show other sources. You've not shown otherwise, or even asked me to back my claim. As for adding "balance", I've pointed out before that it's not reasonable to require an artificial "balance" to something that is inbalanced. I don't see you criticising Wikipedia, for example, for not providing "balance" in their articles supporting evolution. Presumably because you consider the articles to be correct without an artificial "balance". Yet you expect "balance" here despite not showing that the article needs it. So despite accusing me of being unwilling to learn, this is yet another example of where the critics are failing to produce hard evidence and/or argument, and are resorting to vague claims instead. Philip J. Rayment 00:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You are an expert in "vague claims". At least Ace doesn't resort to baseless blocking - the last resort of ignorant fools. not a member! 07:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Another vague claim! Plus a repeated insult. You've earned yourself a block too. Philip J. Rayment 08:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Ace blocked for one month - Can't remember why

Guth and Inflation Theory

I have noted that you are very keen on quoting/referring to Alan Guth/Inflation Theory (as in "The universe comes from nothing!") but do you understand what Inflation Theory is/means and what Guth proposed? Let me explain why I ask – I could give you a calculus equation and technically it would be correct on the face of it however while the equation might be correct that doesn’t mean that I am correct. Unless I actually understand what the calculation means and what it explains or proposes and what the author was intending to convey with the calculation then all I am doing is talking out of my rear end. So let me ask, you enjoy throwing out phrases like "The universe came from nothing – so and so said so!" but can you give me a definition of Inflation Theory, what it means and how it works? It’s one thing to say something, its total different to understand it. I look forward to your response. Ace McWicked 03:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that I do understand what it is, although I'm not saying that my understanding is of all the details. However, I think the issue is that your understanding of one aspect of it differs from mine. I have already put my argument, which you have largely ignored, so I don't see why I should waste my time trying to provide a further explanation which you will no doubt disagree with anyway. Philip J. Rayment 13:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You are telling me you understand Inflation Theory? And you think I'll disagree with your explanation? If you understand what Inflation Theory is then I wont disagree. If I disagree its because you do not understand it and I'll be able to show where you are wrong because I have tons of information at home (in the form of "books"). However, I think the issue is that your understanding of one aspect of it differs from mine. Your understanding will either be correct and inline with the current model or it won't be. After my last block I did something you could do. I went to the library and I borrowed several up to date and well regarded books on cosmology so I have furthered my understanding on the subject. So please enlighten me on your understanding, perhaps I could even teach you something? Ace McWicked 15:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I am still waiting to hear what your understanding of Inflation Theory is. Ace McWicked 07:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

If you understand what Inflation Theory is then I wont disagree. Even if you have a different understanding than me?

If I disagree its because you do not understand it ... Perhaps. Or because you don't (unlikely as that may be), or because I explain it differently, or...

I am still waiting to hear what your understanding of Inflation Theory is. And I'm still waiting for you to respond to my earlier comments which I've already pointed out that you ignored, but you ignored that also!

Philip J. Rayment 14:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have a different undertanding then it is wrong, Philip.

Or because you don't (unlikely as that may be), or because I explain it differently, or... No, it'll only be because you don't understand it. I can quote from directly modern cosmology books. Even write it verbatim though that is a little tedious.

And I'm still waiting for you to respond to my earlier comments which I've already pointed out that you ignored, but you ignored that also! I assume you earlier comments were the argument you claim to have already put forward? I don't remember you ever actually putting forward an argument, it was a over a month ago. But the thing is I need to take a step back from our previous debate about Inflation and figure out what your understanding of it is. Like if we were debating about what kind of horse that was but it turned out you were pointing at a sheep. So please stop side stepping and explain your understanding. Ace McWicked 21:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I am still waiting for your response. Ace McWicked 01:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

? Ace McWicked 03:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Why are you avoiding this? You seem to comfortable quoting Guth and his views to support your contentions so now I am asking you explain what your understanding is of his work, namely - Inflation Theory. Ace McWicked 20:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You might want to take a step back, but I want you to address my previous comments before you open a new front. After you have adequately (in good faith) addressed those comments, then I will oblige you. Philip J. Rayment 03:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume you earlier comments were the argument you claim to have already put forward? I don't remember you ever actually putting forward an argument, it was a over a month ago. But the thing is I need to take a step back from our previous debate about Inflation and figure out what your understanding of it is. Like if we were debating about what kind of horse that was but it turned out you were pointing at a sheep. Philip, if you read the above you'd know that a) I don't know to what you are referring (diff-links would be helpful) and b) I don't know what level your understanding is so I don't know where to start. How do you understand the theory? Ace McWicked 03:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a completely legitimate request, I am trying to see what you understand so I can further the debate. Ace McWicked 03:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm referring to my post in Talk:Evidence for God's existence#Removal of Guth Quote dated 11:50, 31 March 2010.

Yes, your request would be reasonable in normal circumstances, but not when you've so far refused to address my earlier comments on the topic.

Philip J. Rayment 07:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, now we are getting somewhere. However in reading the section in question, and the fact that it has been over a month, I still feel we need to define our terms. Specifically, you need to tell me what Inflation Theory means to you and how you understand it. I cant address your comments until I am aware of what your understanding of Inflation Theory is. My request is completely legitimate under these circumstances. I am not avoiding your questions, I am merely trying to take a step back and gather more information from you so I can answer your questions appropriately. Ace McWicked 23:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Had any further thoughts Philip? I can't address your points unless I know you are not misunderstanding the theory you are trying to counter. Ace McWicked 20:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion we were having before I was blocked has been continued here. I have asked a reasonable request of you. I cannot answer your questions until I have a working definition from you. It is you, not me, who has "open(ed) a new front". Ace McWicked 09:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to discuss dark energy with you on another page when the discussion is here. What is your understanding of Inflation Theory? Ace McWicked 06:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Este sinfin de peticiones no es muy macho, Ace.--CPalmer 11:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Still nothing? You say above that "I believe that I do understand what it is" in regards to Inflation Theory but you have failed to provide? Why is this? You, so able to use such theories in debating rhetoric, but unable to provide a coherent account of what it is you understand when asked for clarification. Ace McWicked 12:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see why you can't address my earlier comments. I have rejected that your request is completely legitimate in these circumstances. I have tried to compromise a little by promising to answer your request if you first respond to my earlier comments. I have been trying to think of a better compromise, but can't see one that I think will work, although I'm open to suggestions. Philip J. Rayment 14:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Your argument consisted entirely of quotes from Guth talking about inflation theory. The debate isn't what Guth said but what he means. You need to tell me what you understand his Inflation Theory to mean. Ace McWicked 22:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

My post does not consist entirely of quotes from Guth. Yes, a large part of it is quotes, but not "entirely", and the post has me explaining what I believe he means, using those quotes to support that. Philip J. Rayment 12:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Then why can't you summarise here what you think it means and how inflation works instead of making me trawl through fractured posts from 2 months ago? All I am doing is stepping back and asking you for clarification, a totally legitimate debating technique used to define terms and avoid confusion. Ace McWicked 20:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There's very little to summarise; the post was not "fractured" at all, and I can't see how this helps when you can (and presumably have) read that post. But in the spirit of compromise, here is what I said without the supporting quotes:

On the contrary, [Guth] does [believe the universe came from nothing]. There are several references to this in the Discovery article, such as...[supporting quotes omitted].

Yet we have the statement that "to a quantum physicist, nothing is, in fact, something". But what is that "something"? Especially in the light of all those references to "nothing"? There's very little explanation.

However, the article also says ...[supporting quotes removed]

The article then goes on to argue that the laws of physics must be capable of existing without the presence of matter. So it seems to me that the "something" that "nothing" is, is the laws of physics. He's arguing that the laws of physics make it possible for something to come from nothing. But the only part of that "something" that exists are the laws of physics. Apart from them, it seems, "nothing" is really nothing.

Philip J. Rayment 12:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

To me your argument is based fully on the quotes from others without any deeper understanding of the topic. Like I said above I could give you a calculus equation and technically it would be correct on the face of it however while the equation might be correct that doesn’t mean that I am correct. Unless I actually understand what the calculation means and what it explains or proposes and what the author was intending to convey with the calculation then all I am doing is talking out of my rear end. All you are doing is repeating what someone else has said without giving any indication that you actually understand what it is they are proposing. You see, this is why I asked what your understanding of Inflation Theory is and you have been unable to provide anything aside from quotes which you have taken at face value. I don't mind giving you a lesson on what Inflation actually proposes (and will do so - however probably not today). Ace McWicked 21:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

To me your argument is based fully on the quotes from others... So what should I have based it on? My imagination? My own first-hand research of the beginning of the universe? No, I would have thought that I should base my argument on the words of those making the argument!

All you are doing is repeating what someone else has said without giving any indication that you actually understand what it is they are proposing. Then you've failed to read/understand my comments, because that is precisely not what I was doing. Rather, I was reading between the lines to gain an understanding, because what I was concluding was not spelled out in a straightforward sentence that I could quote. That's why I had so many quotes; because I had to put the picture together from various comments.

...you have been unable to provide anything aside from quotes ... No, I also provided conclusions. I went to the (small) effort of repeating my comments without the quotes, yet it seems that you've ignored that and are just harping on the fact that I had quoted!

...which you have taken at face value. So I'm not supposed to take Guth's views at face value? What am I supposed to do instead? Twist his words? Assume he's lying?

Philip J. Rayment 08:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this - So what should I have based it on? My imagination? My own first-hand research of the beginning of the universe? No, I would have thought that I should base my argument on the words of those making the argument! and Rather, I was reading between the lines to gain an understanding, because what I was concluding was not spelled out in a straightforward sentence that I could quote. That's why I had so many quotes; because I had to put the picture together from various comments. follwed by So I'm not supposed to take Guth's views at face value? What am I supposed to do instead? Twist his words? Assume he's lying?, heres what I would have done if I was going to form a picture and debate about something as academic as cosmology. I would read Guths article and think it was interesting. I would realise that further reading was needed to form a more accurate picture and I would go to the library and read many books and articles about the subject so I can undertsand the topic more fully. A topic such as this is broad and technical so I would cogigate, think and form a complex picture. What I wouldn't do is "read between the lines" of a single magazine article (or two) and attempt, showing my own ignorance, to debate the aspects of Inflation Theory, and the views of its progenitor without being sure that they way I was "reading between the lines" was how it was supposed to be read. Ace McWicked 10:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

So, in summary, you "accused" me of basing my arguments on Guth's views, of merely repeating what others have said, and of merely quoting, I point out how silly these "accusations" are, and you ignore all that and implicitly accuse me of (not) doing something else! And you accuse me of ignorance in the process! Your total failure to honestly address my reply and my earlier comments about Guth's views, instead disparaging them and ducking the issue, does not make for a valid argument. Philip J. Rayment 14:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

So, in summary, you "accused" me of basing my arguments on Guth's views, of merely repeating what others have said, and of merely quoting, I point out how silly these "accusations" are, and you ignore all that and implicitly accuse me of (not) doing something else! Re read my comment, I address why my "accusations" are not silly but drawing your attention to the small amount evidence you have presented to support your view. Basing your conclusions by "reading between the lines" does not make for a valid argument. Ace McWicked 01:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You have not addressed why your accusations were not silly. You instead produced a different accusation, regarding the amount of evidence. "Reading between the lines" was not wording that I was happy with, but was meant to convey that I was doing the opposite of what you were accusing me of—just providing quotes which I've taken at face value. You're ignoring that you were wrong in that (and other) accusations. Philip J. Rayment 11:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop bleating, you have consistently ducked and weaved and weaseled about providing any evidence to support your position or to substantiate that you understand Inflation Theory. When further prodded you give me So what should I have based it on? My imagination? My own first-hand research of the beginning of the universe? No, I would have thought that I should base my argument on the words of those making the argument! and Rather, I was reading between the lines to gain an understanding, because what I was concluding was not spelled out in a straightforward sentence that I could quote. That's why I had so many quotes; because I had to put the picture together from various comments. follwed by So I'm not supposed to take Guth's views at face value? What am I supposed to do instead? Twist his words? Assume he's lying? so yes, I have accused you of "of basing my arguments on Guth's views, of merely repeating what others have said, and of merely quoting" because you have provided nothing else in the way of a cogent argument. Ace McWicked 12:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop bleating, you have consistently ducked and weaved and weaseled about providing any evidence to support your position or to substantiate that you understand Inflation Theory. And you haven't ducked and weaved in avoiding answering the post I made back in March? Even after reposting it here at your request?

so yes, I have accused you of "of basing my arguments on Guth's views, of merely repeating what others have said, and of merely quoting" because you have provided nothing else in the way of a cogent argument. First, even if I had provided nothing else, those accusations are still false. Second, that you have not been convinced by my argument does not mean that I've not provided a good argument, and if it's so unconvincing, you should have no problem responding to it, but you avoid doing so.

Philip J. Rayment 12:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

And you haven't ducked and weaved in avoiding answering the post I made back in March? Even after reposting it here at your request? I was blocked for a month and I haven't ducked and weaved in the slightest - I have been most aggressive and straight forward to elicit you to explain yourself. Second, that you have not been convinced by my argument does not mean that I've not provided a good argument You haven't even made an argument or explained what you think Inflation Theory is, you really haven't. Is it your contention that Guth and Inflation Theory predicts a universe from a complete absence of anything? Ace McWicked 13:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

...I have been most aggressive and straight forward... Yet you have avoided answering that earlier post.

You haven't even made an argument or explained what you think Inflation Theory is, you really haven't. Is it your contention that Guth and Inflation Theory predicts a universe from a complete absence of anything? This makes it seem that you have not even read that earlier post of the requested summary of it in this discussion. Because in that post I made an argument and I explained what Guth appeared to be saying that the "nothing" is.

Philip J. Rayment 11:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

In summary

So in summary you sum up your argument with The article then goes on to argue that the laws of physics must be capable of existing without the presence of matter. So it seems to me that the "something" that "nothing" is, is the laws of physics. He's arguing that the laws of physics make it possible for something to come from nothing. But the only part of that "something" that exists are the laws of physics. Apart from them, it seems, "nothing" is really nothing. which you have garnered though reading the magazine article in Discovery, and a couple of other sources, and deducing that this is what Inflation theory comes down to. Correct? Ace McWicked 21:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the above a fair representation of what you are arguing? Ace McWicked 03:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that was not meant as a description of inflation theory. That was what Guth appeared to be saying the "nothing" that the universe came from was. Philip J. Rayment 14:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

We were previously debating because i said it was a creationist strawman to state that "evolutionists" believe the universe came from nothing. I said no theory states this as something can't come from nothing to which you agreed and stated that's why the Big Bang was a "bunch of malarky". I challenged you to find a theory that stated the universe came from nothing. You picked Alan Guth, talking about his inflation theory, to support this view. So, in summary, your argument is that Alan Guth's inflation theory, as he states it, holds the universe came from nothing. Now, is that a fair representation? Ace McWicked 21:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it? Ace McWicked 23:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I said no theory states this as something can't come from nothing to which you agreed... Just to clarify, I agreed that "something can't come from nothing", not that "no theory states this".

You picked Alan Guth, talking about his inflation theory, to support this view. Guth was one of the several examples I provided, but otherwise, yes.

So, in summary, your argument is that Alan Guth's inflation theory, as he states it, holds the universe came from nothing. Now, is that a fair representation? No. Inflation, as I understand it, is a claim about what occurred just after the universe began. Guth proposed inflation. Guth says that the universe came from nothing. But I'm not saying that inflation is Guth's explanation about how it started.

I do think, though, that until you asked that question, I had not realised that you thought I was conflating the two. So that was a useful clarification.

Philip J. Rayment 01:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't argue what you don't understand Philip so allow me to retort. Ace McWicked 02:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying that I shouldn't do what anti-creationists usually do? Philip J. Rayment 02:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Childish response. Typical of someone who has no ground to stand on. Ace McWicked 02:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not childish to point out hypocrisy. Philip J. Rayment 08:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You are as guilty as those you accuse. Ace McWicked 08:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

As I have now explained on your talk page, you are not comparing like for like. Philip J. Rayment 14:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No one cares whether or not you think it's "like for like". This whole website is testament to your hypocrisy, dishonesty and bigotry whether you think so or not. I'll check your response and see if there is anything worth responding to but I doubt it . Ace McWicked 21:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Argument by assertion. Philip J. Rayment 09:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Argument from incredulity. Ace McWicked 10:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Argumentum ad infinitum.--CPalmer 10:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Argumentum ad nauseum. Ace McWicked 10:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Argument from incredulity. Argumentum by citing random fallacy. Philip J. Rayment 14:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Argument by psychological projection. Jaxe 07:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Inflation 101

This all began because Philip was quoting, creation.com also, that the universe came from nothing as this is what evolutionists believe – see here and here where Philip demonstrates he has no understanding of the issues but steadfastly argues that others are wrong using articles from Creation.com and quote mines from cosmologists with breathtaking ignorance. He willfully misuses science to support his closeted views. If he had any understanding of the topic he wouldn't spout such nonsense. The fact that he has no understanding yet continues to argue a topic he does not understand speaks volumes about the creationist mindset. He has failed to demonstrate any knowledge on the topic at hand despite repeated requests to provide. All he does is duck and weave.
I was first introduced to Inflation Theory about 10 years ago and, after reading several books on the topic, the examples I use to explain the thought around it are the examples that I found easiest to get my head around. Note though that this explanation isn’t me arguing the ‘’validity’’ of Inflation Theory, more because Philip is deficient on the subject of cosmology and, despite my insistence that he provide some explanation of his understanding – particularly if he is going to argue that “evolutionists claim the universe came from nothing, he is unable to give a coherent dissertation on the subject and has failed to demonstrate any understanding of the topic. Preferring instead to “read between the lines” of the few articles he has read and to quote the words of experts as if they support is his views without ever delving deeper into the fuller picture – all the while asserting that his understanding (or lack thereof) is correct. Thereby denigrating the massive leaps and bounds of academic thought partaken by the giants in the field.

So, "the universe from nothing" then.....
Imagine nothing. Not nothing in time as in a lack of matter and space, but no universe.
No time, no stuff, just a void or vacuum. But this void has a peculiar quality to it; it has a quantum state, a field. It is a field that is subjected to the uncertainty principle and probability. It’s a seething “foam” of particles - popping in and out of existence. These virtual particles borrow energy from the field, appear into existence and disappear back into it again, returning their energy so as not to violate the conservation of energy law. That’s what we call a quantum fluctuation. The appearance of matter (I use “matter” here broadly – for lack of a better term) is a fluctuation in the field.
The energy state of this field isn’t its true energy. While the energy of this field is zero sum (hence “nothing” because the energy is zero, balanced by two competing forces. One one hand there is the energy provided by the vacuum energy and on the other hand is the replusion of negative gravity caused by the fluctuations), with the energy of the vacuum matching exactly the energy taken by the fluctuations. But this is an unstable balance of energies. It is a more energetic state than would you’d have without these fluctuations. Something we know in physics is that particles, atoms, anything will always try to attain the lowest possible energy state, to entropy. So these fluctuations from the quantum field produce energy, a higher energy than what would be if the field were at rest.
This may sound like circular, “The energy comes from the quantum fluctuations which are caused by the energy” but that is a misunderstanding. The field, this nothing, has an energy state already but the quantum fluctuations produce a higher energy state through the brief creation of mass and even gravity, popping in and out producing a higher energy field than what it should be, it is called a false energy state.
We can see this in nature even; super cooled water will not freeze, even at levels well below 0c. Icing on airplane wings is caused by super cooled water hitting the wing and suddenly freezing. Liquid water at -20c (for example) is in a false energy state, poised to attain its real, lower energy status.
So the vacuum was in a state of false energy, its vacuum energy was much like the super cooled water, all that was needed was an airplane wing to drop that false energy state.

Imagine this false energy state is like a ball bearing inside a shot glass, rolling up and down the sides, back and forth like a skate boarder on a half pipe. Because of the deepness and the sheer sides of the shot glass, the ball bearing rolls up and down at speed. Next to this shot glass is a small bowl – it is shallower and its sides are a gentle gradient. For the ball bearing, the bowl is the lowest energy state. Much like the quantum field, the ball bearing is at a high energy state, a false energy. Try as it might the ball bearing cannot break over the rim; there is not enough energy available to get it over the rim and into a lower energy state. In the quantum world though, strange things can happen. Instead of rolling over the rim, the ball bearing tunnels though the side of the glass and appears in the bowl. This effect is called quantum-mechanical tunneling. Because of the uncertainty principle we cannot be sure where the particle is at any given time and its probability wave extends beyond its current energy state within the shot glass and into the lower, preferable state. Because lower energy state is a preferable state then there is more probability of the particle being in a low energy state as opposed to gaining more energy in order to cross over the rim. This sounds abstract but without tunneling the sun wouldn’t shine nor would your computer chip be working as it is right now.
So we have this virtual particle, like all the infinite others popping about around it however this one’s probability wave tunnels it through the barrier and into a lower energy state. Then it inflates like a bubble as the expansion decreases the energy within the expanding section increasing the new, lower energy universe in size in repulsion to the field it grew from. While this is happening quantum fluctuations are still occurring and, as the inflation continues, the quantum fluctuations are expanded; inflated with space itself causing clumps of the stuff that makes our universe aggregate. After 10^-32 seconds the new” bubble universe” disconnects from the field, leaving no trace neither here nor there. Big Bang cosmology then takes over.

New theories in Inflation tend towards a different imagining. Instead of a shot glass, imagine a sombrero. At the top point there is a depression where our ball bearing sits, surrounded on all sides by the lower ring of the sombrero. When Inflation occurs in this model there is no need for quantum tunneling, the ball bearing instead simply rolls down the slope, inflating the universe as it heads for the lower energy state.
A way to imagine this as a larger picture is to think of a boiling pot of water – the water represents the vacuum, clear and transparent but filled with energy. The element at the bottom which heats the water represents the fluctuations. The bubbles in the water are the inflation of universes – seemingly from nothing. Some expand greatly and others immediately fall back again within, what some see, as a larger multiverse.
Inflation is important as it solves the Horizon problem, the flatness problem and also answers why the universe is homogenous with clumps of matter all in one without having to introduce anything. Unlike other cosmological theories, we can actually test some aspects of inflation using quantum mechanics. We know that quantum tunneling is a real phenomenon; we also know that virtual particles are created. Recent studies have measured the energy being created, seemingly from nothing before disappearing again. A leading theory suggests that 73% of the universe's energy is actually held within empty space (this is in fact one of the leading theories on what Dark energy is – one I subscribe to myself).

Virtual particles are popping in and out of existence all around us and, like in the field before Inflation began, empty space has a weight. In fact, recent studies and observations have shown that in empty space, between the electron and the nucleus – everywhere, particles and are being created and returning back into the vacuum continuously. Most of the weight and energy of the universe is thought to be held in inside the vacuum, inside this false vacuum state. This has curious aspects in that inflation of new universes, budding off others could be happening right now, in front of you – even inside of you, without anyone ever being the wiser.

Response to user page on inflation.

This is a response to your diatrabe on your user page.

Your opening paragraph is a series of accusations against me. I have "no understanding", I use "quote mines" with "breathtaking ignorance". I "willfully (sic) misuse science". I have "closeted" views. I "spout nonsense". I have "failed to demonstrate any knowledge on the topic at hand" (my emphasis). All I do is "duck and weave". Yet what is noteworthy here is that none of these accusations are supported in any way. They remain accusations, not demonstrated truths. Okay, the one about ducking and weaving does have a link, but that's a link to a conversation where I am declining to answer your question because you have steadfastly refused to respond to comments I had previously made!

This paragraph also displays a typical anti-creationist debating tactic of applying "spin" to creationist argument to make something good sound like something bad. Specifically, when I quote secular cosmologists in support of my argument, this is caricatured as my "quote mining" them, as though quoting what they actually say is somehow something bad. Quotes can, of course, be taken out of context, whether deliberately or inadvertently, but typical of accusations of "quote mining", no effort was made to demonstrate any lack of context, let alone any deliberate attempt to misrepresent. No, simply throwing the accusation is sufficient argument, it seems.

The second paragraph includes more of the same. I'm "deficient on the subject of cosmology" and I'm "unable to give a coherent dissertation on the subject" and I've "failed to demonstrate any understanding of the topic" (both of which are anti-creationist-speak for "I didn't agree with what he said"). You had previously accused me (on my talk page) of merely quoting ("All you are doing is repeating what someone else has said"), and I had responded by pointing out that I had not merely quoted, but had put together an understanding of what they were saying. I used a term which I was not happy with, of "reading between the lines", to indicate that I was not merely quoting. You siezed on this as something bad, but despite me pointing out to you what I meant, you repeated the accusation here as though it was something unanswered. Isn't that being deceitful?

You then go into an extended description of quantum processes, inflation theory, and what the "nothing" really is.

After that, you return to maligning me. This includes further assertions that I'm wrong, yet nowhere in all your posts have you ever explained precisely what I got wrong. I made an argument about what Guth believes the "nothing" is based on an article about his views. You've pointed out that the article was in a "pop science magazine", thereby implicitly questioning it as a source, but have done nothing to point out any errors in my argument. Did the article misrepresent his views? Did I misunderstand what the article said? I have absolutely no idea what your answer to those questions would be, because you've not even bothered to refute my specific argument, despite me repeatedly pointing out your failure to do so. But you freely accuse me of "ducking and weaving"!

You say that I will "turn around and claim that no one has ever given you a proper argument! The arrogance!". I don't say that no one has ever done this, so the arrogance is in you suggesting that I would. You claim that you've seen me debate with people who work in specialist areas, as though it's ignorant, uneducate, me against these experts, but you overlook that most of the "argument" I get is worldview-based (naturalistic), ad hominem, vilification, logically fallacious, and/or bigoted and hypocritical nonsense (such as creation scientists not actually being scientists, or the Journal of Creation not being peer-reviewed because it's (supposedly) reviewed by other creationists, despite evolutionary papers in evolutionary journals being reviewed by other evolutionists). Yes, there is some "proper" argument, but it's often hard to find it amongst the sea of improper argument. So you pretending that its me versus expert argument is gross misrepresentation. Therefore, it's not a matter of me having or not having "equal intellectual talent".

I refer to you quote on Wikipedia “I find it quite annoying and frustrating that there are so many sceptics that argue vehemently against the Biblical record of creation and the flood, yet are so grossly ignorant of the idea that they argue so strongly against.” You are the worst violator of this than anyone else Philip and the above just goes to show that. Actually, no. If you read the rest of that section on my Wikipedia user page, it lists some examples of what I was talking about. And note that every item I list are basic fundamental facts about what creationists believe. I'm not talking about less-well-known areas, nor am I talking about who is right. I'm talking about what anyone would learn from a cursory reading of the Bible and/or creationist material. Compare these two sources and claims:

Source	Understanding
The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada.	Creationists argue that secular scientists believe that the universe formed from nothing.
Dr Don Batten: Ph.D. in Plant Physiology Dr Pierre Jerlström: Ph.D. in Molecular Biology Dr Mark Harwood: Ph.D. in science/engineering Dr John Hartnett: Ph.D. in Physics, fulltime university Research Fellow	Some evolutionists argue that creationists are not scientists.

See the difference? You can argue that creationists have misunderstood Guth's argument if you wish, but you can't argue that they are ignorant in the same way that some evolutionists are ignorant of basic creationist claims. So your accusation of me being like those I criticise is incorrect as you are not comparing like for like. See this sentence of yours: "you argue vehemently against it without showing one iota of deeper understanding on what it is you are arguing against." Note the word that I emphasised? What I accuse people of is of having almost no idea at all; not of lacking a deeper understanding.

You said that you were not trying to argue for inflation, but just to explain what it was. Similarly, I don't intend to dissect your explanation which may well be essentially correct. However, you continue to ignore a significant point I make, and even to misrepresent me on it.

First let me draw an analogy. If I say that the glass has nothing in it, I probably mean that there is no drink in it, or perhaps that there is no visible object in it. I'm not meaning that it is devoid of air, energy, electromagnetic radiation, and so forth. So I fully except that "nothing" does not have to mean absolutely nothing at all. That is, I accept that when a cosmologist says that the universe came from nothing, he might not be meaning absolutely nothing at all.

However, despite you giving the impression that my claim was based on a single pop-science article, I actually quoted several different secular sources to back the claim. Not only that, but several of those sources—as I pointed out—emphasised the nothingness of the nothing. That is, that it was absolutely nothing. Even then, I was prepared to accept that this absolutely nothing may not be quite that, and explained that what Guth was arguing was that it wasn't quite absolutely nothing at all—there was a very small (but important) something there: the laws of physics themselves. I can understand how absolutely nothing but the laws of physics could be described not only as "nothing", but as "absolutely nothing". Mind you, I don't think that even if this was the case (I don't believe that, as I believe that God created those laws), it really changes the argument at all that Guth and others believe that the universe popped into existence from nothingness and without cause. But that's a separate issue. What is at issue is that you persistently claimed that I was wrong to interpret absolutely nothing as, well, absolutely nothing. Yes, you offered to (and have now) explain(ed) what you understand the "nothing" is, but have failed to explain why those several secular sources I quoted stressed the nothingness of the nothing.

Then there's the matter that you've hardly made your case. For one thing, you describe "nothing" as a "zero sum" as though this somehow makes a difference. But how are two people being means tested any different simply because one has no assets and the other has as many liabilities as assets? In both cases, their worth is zero, and that's the relevant point. The other thing is that your explanation has "particles - popping in and out of existence." If they are popping into existence, that means that prior to this they didn't exist. That is, they were nothing. So even your explanation has something coming from nothing (and apparently for no reason). So isn't that just what I was claiming anyway? The only difference is a story about there being a theory that this is what happens.

Philip J. Rayment 13:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing here outside of self justifications, continued arrogance and a complete inability to understand the argument. Even going as far as to call my well thought out explanation a "diatribe" which only goes to show you have no respect for anyone who thinks differently to you. Typical behavior from you Philip which betrays a complete lack of internal and objective dialogue with yourself. The few points worth responding to, in order to clarify and not to support you in the position that you have really said anything meaningful, are as follows-

I provided two other links which show you arguing a position you know nothing about (even positively asserting ..my words in italics..Alan Guth does not believe the universe came from nothing. On the contrary, he does.) Where you consistently try to claim the big bang and it's theorist claim "it came nothing". If you had known the topic at hand you wouldn't have continued on this line.

I "steadfastly refused to respond to comments (you) had previously made" because you made comments but did not make an argument despite my repeated attempts to elicit a coherent understanding from you. As I pointed out several times I couldn't answer your questions because I had no idea of what you understand the topic to mean. It is completely and utterly justified for me to ask you to clarify. It took me two months to get clarification and even then it was barely coherent.

You say you provided secular scientists to support your argument but, again, you didn't make a properly formed argument and quoted sentences you thought agreed with your position when position was flawed in the first place and didn't have, or at least show, any understanding of what the sources were supporting.

While I am sure you didn't deliberately attempt to use quotes out of context you still used quotes without understanding what it actually means or relates to and without investigating further.

Your "anti-creationist-speak for "I didn't agree with what he said" - is laughable in the extreme. No I didn't agree with what you said because it was wrong. So saying your wrong, when you are demonstrably wrong, is now "anti-creationist speak"? Is it all anti-creationist speak until I agree with you? Again, laughable that you'd attempt to use this as a rebuttal and offensive in that you assume to know what I am thinking. Poor thinking on your part but again it only bolsters your sheer arrogance in that everyone, expect you, is incorrect. When anyone tries to demonstrate the opposite and suggests that you are incorrect it is "anti-creationist speak" and can then be discarded.

I have shown you the errors in your argument. Because you can't see it and are unwilling to step down and admit deficiency on subject doesn't mean I have failed. This is your arrogance again - "Its not me, it's the anti-creationists".

The whole paragraph that ends with "equal intellectual talent" is a complete joke. Your arrogance again. Just because you think someone is arguing a "worldview" does not mean that you are able to stand toe to toe with them. Someone arguing biology isn't arguing a "worldview" they are arguing biology and these logical fallacies you point out are merely constructs of your misunderstanding, poor education and inability to properly weigh arguments that don't agree to the narrow and strict guidelines you have imposed upon your own intellect.

When discussing your wikipedia quote you make mention of examples you are referring to. I fail to see how this makes a difference because this whole inflation/Guth "debate" is an example in itself of you arguing over something you have little to knowledge in outside of creationism.

I am sorry your table doesn't make any sense to me and I can argue that not only do creationists misunderstand Guth but, like you, they do so willfully thinking that he supports their contentions all the while probably knowing that, on closer inspection, it doesn't. Creation.com proudly displayed that "evolutionists say the universe comes from nothing!", again without deeper knowledge that it isn't the case. What does that say about creation.com? How good are their fact checkers and do they even bother?

Finally, on the topic of inflation and "nothing" you attempt to make an argument and to display what your understanding was 2 months after I asked. But you make so many flaws. First you say you accept that cosmologists might not mean "absolutely nothing" which is totally different to what you were saying before. Secondly you note "my understanding" despite my understanding being taken from several techinical books on the subject. You are attempting to muddy the waters, as if this is open to interpretation. It isn't.

Those several secular sources you mention are what? Magazines? Or technical tomes? It is irrelevant what those sources say, what is relevant is you based your argument entirely on a few sources without ever once delving into the nuts and bolts of it. Again, arrogance on your part.

Zero sum does make a difference Philip. It means the balance of energies is equal, 100 parts to 100. Take one away you 101 to 99. And yes they are popping in and out of existence but that doesn't mean they come from nothing. The pain you feel when I smash you in the face and the heat against your cheek was all once kinetic energy in my arm. Are you saying that the transfer of E=MC2 is something from nothing also?

Nothing here goes to justify your opinion of yourself and your "arguments". All I see is arrogance, bitterness and an inability to admit where you are wrong or not qualified to comment. Ace McWicked 01:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

All I see is arrogance, bitterness and an inability to admit where you are wrong or not qualified to comment. I've been watching this farce from the sidelines for a while now and I see that too, but I think you have the parties mixed up. What I see is Ace not understanding what Philip is saying and blaming it on some imagined lack of understanding on Philip's part. The whole "I can't respond to x until you explain your position on y" was exceedingly silly. The whole thing seems to have come because Philip said that secular cosmologists (specifically mentioning Guth) say that the universe came from nothing, and you disagreed on the basis that Guth's theory doesn't state that. Instead of dealing with he fact that those are two different things you seem to be insisting that Philip has conflated them, or you are conflating them. It's hard to tell which. I honestly think you have fundamentally misconstrued Philip's point, in a similar manner to what was happening regarding Dark Energy. It's not a case of one party being wrong and the other right, but of two parties addressing two related but distinct and separate points. I suggest taking a deep breath, going back to the beginning (i.e. the actual initial statement) and see if it meant what you think it meant. Personally I still struggle with the semantics whereby non-existence <> "nothing", but I will talk about that in my attempt to address the Dark Energy orbiting conversation, as it is somewhat related (that's turning into quite a lengthy essay).LowKey 06:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That is extremely dishonest Brad. I never said "I can't respond to x until you explain your position on y". I couldn't continue because I needed clarification, Philip had made no argument and I couldn't respond to him without him defining his terms. This debate was spread over several pages and I was then blocked for a month. I then returned and, to continue the debate, asked Philip to relay his understanding from where we left off. It is extremely dishonest of you to state it any other way when I have been explicit on this point. Ace McWicked 06:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing here outside of self justifications, continued arrogance and a complete inability to understand the argument. On the contrary, I have pointed out your fallacy of making accusations and not substantiating them. So you make more, and still fail to substantiate them.

Even going as far as to call my well thought out explanation a "diatribe"... No, I called the post a "diatribe". The part that justified that term was your unsubstantiated accusations, not the explanation of inflation itself.

...which only goes to show you have no respect for anyone who thinks differently to you. The part that fails respect is the unsubstantiated accusations, not the different thinking.

Typical behavior from you Philip... Granted; given the typical unsubstantiated accusations, my response is therefore also typical.

I provided two other links which show you arguing a position you know nothing about ... The only two other links in that first paragraph (the focus of that part of my comments) were to your opening comment that "This all began because Philip was quoting ... that the universe came from nothing as this is what evolutionists believe", a comment that I did not list as one of the accusations you made. I will concede to some lack of clarity on my part here, but the accusations you made which I listed were insulting ones. Your opening comment, whilst potentially false, was not insulting, and I did not include that in my list and did not dispute it. I did not mention the supporting links because they supported something that I wasn't objecting to.

I "steadfastly refused to respond to comments (you) had previously made" because you made comments but did not make an argument despite my repeated attempts to elicit a coherent understanding from you. I cannot understand how you can consider that I made no argument in that post. I specifically made the argument that Guth was arguing that the "nothing" was the laws of physics.

It is completely and utterly justified for me to ask you to clarify. You had refused to answer several times before asking for clarification, and even then it wasn't in direct response to that post.

It took me two months to get clarification and even then it was barely coherent. You never did get clarification. The "clarification" you got was merely a copy and paste of my original post, sans quotes. Ignoring your "barely coherent" slight, this shows that the original post was clear enough to respond to, but you had refused.

You say you provided secular scientists to support your argument but, again, you didn't make a properly formed argument and quoted sentences you thought agreed with your position when position was flawed in the first place and didn't have, or at least show, any understanding of what the sources were supporting. I agree that in those cases I merely quoted. But then you ignored those quotes, even denying that they existed, rather than attempt to point out any flaw in my use of them.

While I am sure you didn't deliberately attempt to use quotes out of context... Until now, you have not even suggested that they were out of context, let along explaining how they are (beyond your standard response that I don't mean what they mean).

Your "anti-creationist-speak for "I didn't agree with what he said" - is laughable in the extreme. It seems pretty accurate to me, given that such comments usually have no substantiation.

No I didn't agree with what you said because it was wrong. So saying your wrong, when you are demonstrably wrong, is now "anti-creationist speak"? It is when you don't demonstrate that I am wrong. As you have still not done, as I pointed out in my previous post. That is, you have explained what Guth apparently means, but you haven't tried to show any flaws in my use of the quotes or my reasoning.

Is it all anti-creationist speak until I agree with you? No, it's anti-creationist-speak when you don't address the argument but disagree anyway.

...offensive in that you assume to know what I am thinking. I'm describing what it amounts to rather than your thinking.

I have shown you the errors in your argument. Where? All I've seen is accusations of ignorance and arrogance, and an alternative explanation.

Because you can't see it and are unwilling to step down and admit deficiency on subject doesn't mean I have failed. Your failure is not (in this case ate least) because you haven't convinced me, but because you haven't even tried (to show the flaws in my reasoning).

Just because you think someone is arguing a "worldview" does not mean that you are able to stand toe to toe with them. Given that I've studied worldviews quite a bit, why not?

Someone arguing biology isn't arguing a "worldview" they are arguing biology... Agreed. But an evolutionist, for example, is arguing a worldview, not biology. If he is describing how plant work, he is arguing biology. If he is describing how he believes the plants originated, he is arguing a worldview.

...these logical fallacies you point out are merely constructs of your misunderstanding, poor education and inability to properly weigh arguments that don't agree to the narrow and strict guidelines you have imposed upon your own intellect. More unsubstantiated accusations. And my education, although not to university level, was not "poor".

When discussing your wikipedia quote you make mention of examples you are referring to. I fail to see how this makes a difference... Then would you please re-read what I said, because I explained the difference. In a nutshell, the difference is that I was talking about the basics of creation such as how long the flood lasted, not more esoteric aspects such as inflation.

I am sorry your table doesn't make any sense to me... What part doesn't make sense, or in what way doesn't it make sense?

...they do so willfully thinking that he supports their contentions all the while probably knowing that, on closer inspection, it doesn't. See, right there is one of the key differences: the "on closer inspection" bit. I also note that you are making an argument on what they "probably" know.

What does that say about creation.com? How good are their fact checkers and do they even bother? Well, given that they have highly-trained and very knowledgable scientists on tap, I wouldn't be at all surprised that they might know more about it than you.

Finally, on the topic of inflation and "nothing" you attempt to make an argument and to display what your understanding was 2 months after I asked. No, I merely expanded my earlier argument in the light of your new post.

First you say you accept that cosmologists might not mean "absolutely nothing" which is totally different to what you were saying before. Again wrong. It was that post two months ago where I wrote that Guth apparently meant "absolutely nothing" to mean "the laws of physics". How did you not pick that up?

Secondly you note "my understanding" despite my understanding being taken from several techinical books on the subject. You are attempting to muddy the waters, as if this is open to interpretation. It isn't. Well, given that there are highly trained and knowledgeable scientists who have a different view, I think my characterisation was fair. You seem to have the attitude that you have the right understanding, contrary to those other scientists. Yet you accuse me of being arrogant.

Those several secular sources you mention are what? Magazines? Or technical tomes? I provided links with the quotes. But given that you denied I provided the quotes, I guess you didn't look at them.

It is irrelevant what those sources say, what is relevant is you based your argument entirely on a few sources without ever once delving into the nuts and bolts of it. And you attempt to refute them by impugning the source rather than show any fault in my use of them or their understanding.

Zero sum does make a difference Philip. It means the balance of energies is equal, 100 parts to 100. Take one away you 101 to 99. If you take away one you get 99, so I get that bit. But where did the extra one come from to make 101? In any case, you are no longer talking about a zero sum then.

And yes they are popping in and out of existence but that doesn't mean they come from nothing. Because....? I already pointed out that if they pop into existence, then they didn't exist before. That means that nothing became something. Your response is to simply claim I'm wrong, but not to explain why I'm wrong.

Are you saying that the transfer of E=MC2 is something from nothing also? Huh? Your example was the transfer of E, not of the whole equation. And I fail to see how even this is something from nothing, given that you had something (kinetic energy) to begin with.

That is extremely dishonest Brad. I never said "I can't respond to x until you explain your position on y". I fail to see how this is "extremely dishonest". At best, he is mistaken.

Philip had made no argument... Given that I had made an argument, and had pointed that out several times, can I call your comment "dishonest" also?

...to continue the debate, asked Philip to relay his understanding from where we left off. I had explained what I believed Guth was getting at (i.e. my "understanding") two months ago. Your request was not about my specific understanding of Guth's comments about something coming from nothing, but my understanding of his inflation hypothesis.

Philip J. Rayment 15:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As you appear to not to be able to to see youself objectively or have the capacity of self reflection I'll put aside my "accusations" (read as:Identifications of your character flaws) and focus on the science aspect for the time being. Firstly -

given that they have highly-trained and very knowledgable scientists on tap, I wouldn't be at all surprised that they might know more about it than you. If that is that case then they are purposely misrepresenting Guth, and his theory, to satisfy their own views via presenting a few qoutes on the topic without given the reader the context.

I am not sure how you are misunderstanding the zero sum bit but I'll explain. You broke up my sentence into two different points above instead reading it as a whole, I know that's your stratergy but it caused you to miss the point. It is a balance of energies. Say the feild has 100 parts of energy. Because it is zero sum when a particle is created it goes from 100 to 99 + 1 particle. The virtual particle uses the energy from the feild to create itself then immediatly dissapates back into the feild renewing it to 100 parts again. So it is all equal, 100 energy, 100 particles. When a new particle is created it goes 99 to 101 and back again, a balance of energy. Energy into mass, mass back to energy - E=MC². So your I already pointed out that if they pop into existence, then they didn't exist before. That means that nothing became something. Your response is to simply claim I'm wrong, but not to explain why I'm wrong. was already explained. The energy already exsisted but just transfered from enegry to mass and back again. Simple.

Finally - Well, given that there are highly trained and knowledgeable scientists who have a different view Which ones? Show me which ones disagree. Ace McWicked 22:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As you appear to not to be able to to see youself objectively or have the capacity of self reflection I'll put aside my "accusations" (read as:Identifications of your character flaws)... That's an interesting way to put aside accusations—make more!

If that is that case then they are purposely misrepresenting Guth,... Perhaps so, but not simply because you say so. It could equally be that you are purposely misrepresenting Guth. Or that you are unwittingly representing Guth. Your sole stated rationale for saying that they are wrong is that they disagree with you and you believe that you are right.

You broke up my sentence into two different points above instead reading it as a whole, I know that's your stratergy ... It's a methodology, not a strategy. It's simply to help make clear what point I am replying to.

Regarding your explanation, first let me say that it's great when you do explain something properly, rather than spend so much time on denigration, or rather than give summary statements and expect me to fully understand. Secondly, again because of that better explanation, I now understand what you are saying regarding the zero sum process. However, I now have a new question. The "zero sum" that you now describe is not, as far as I can see, really a zero sum at all. Rather, you have 100 parts energy. One part becomes a particle, so you have 99 parts energy and one part particle. Fine, the sum hasn't changed, but the sum is 100, not zero. That is, in both cases you have something, not "nothing" (zero). I'm sure you're not trying to say that before there was matter there was (conventional) energy. So how does this relate to Guth's ideas of "nothing"?

Which ones? Show me which ones disagree. The CMI ones. For example, John Hartnett.

Philip J. Rayment 04:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It could equally be that you are purposely misrepresenting Guth. Or that you are unwittingly representing Guth. Your sole stated rationale for saying that they are wrong is that they disagree with you and you believe that you are right. Errr, what? I am quoting Guth, Hawking etc (you know, those pesky refs I gave showing where I was getting my information?) So I know they are wrong and, if you did any of the suggested reading or watching then you'd know it too. This is not a matter of my interpretation vs. theirs. This is a matter of the actual theory vs. CMI's misrepresenting of it. I can't stress enough that my explanation of Inflation theory is the current scientific explanation with no spin of my own. They don't just disagree with me - they disagree with Inflation theory (this was what the whole debate was about remember?)

zero-sum describes a situation in which a participant's gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the other. As there are two different competing energies that are exactly balanced then they cancel each other out. In the pre-universe, as stated, this was a very unstable balance. The number could be 100 energy, 100 particles or whatever - pick a number, but it is a balance and they zero out. I Don't understand what you are getting at here - That is, in both cases you have something, not "nothing" (zero). I'm sure you're not trying to say that before there was matter there was (conventional) energy. So how does this relate to Guth's ideas of "nothing"?.

How is Harlett relevant here? That article says nothing about Guth or inflation? Ace McWicked 04:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Errr, what? I am quoting Guth, Hawking etc... No, you were not "quoting" Guth, etc. Almost nothing in your user-page explanation is direct quote. You were, rather, explaining your understanding of their ideas in your own words. That's not to say that your explanation is incorrect, of course, but you can't say that your explanation is incorrect and CMI's is not on the basis of you "quoting" them. CMI was also "quoting". They actually quoted Discover's description of Guth's views, and while that's not, of course, the same as quoting Guth himself, you've never once explicitly claimed that Discover got it wrong.

Regarding zero-sum, that's a situation where the change is zero, because a gain in one is a loss in the other. But we are not talking about a change, but a starting amount. Guth describes the universe as coming from "nothing", and you are trying to say that this "nothing" is a "zero sum". But if "zero sum" is the amount of change, and what they universe came from is a quantity, then we are talking about two different things, surely?

Hartnett is relevant as an example of a scientist who disagrees. The article says that "they accept by faith that the big bang happened, that ‘nothing exploded’...".

Philip J. Rayment 07:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

After everything I said, the links I produced to videos and books so you can learn about this, you continue to argue while displaying a blatant and utter ignorance of what you speak. Philip, you're an idiot. Ace McWicked 07:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This and other personal comments have earned you another block. See next section. Philip J. Rayment 08:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Ace Blocked for one month

Frustration

I know why I was banned but the reality of the situation is that I continually get frustrated at creationists arguing against an idea that they clearly haven't studied sufficiently, or in many cases apparently not at all (except from creationist sources). In this case, Inflation Theory. Ace McWicked 21:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Without admitting that this is the case, at least perhaps you realise how us creationists feel about anti-creationist arguments. Philip J. Rayment 02:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is the case actually. You were arguing cosmology with me without demonstrating any knowledge on the topic we were discussing but steadfastly refusing to believe me based on your own uneducated notions. Are you ready to admit that your use, and creationists as a whole, of Guth's quote is misleading and incorrect? Ace McWicked 02:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I was quoting Guth and other sources, and your comments didn't appear to gel with those sources, including Guth himself. And you repeatedly failed to address my explanation of Guth's comments. So no, I'm not admitting that my use of Guth is incorrect on your say-so. Philip J. Rayment 06:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

OK then, I give you a breakdown of Inflation Theory based on my 10 years reading on the topic, 5 different supporting sources (2 of which were videos you can watch right now) plus a link from Guth's own MIT biography which states "Inflation is a modification of the conventional big bang theory, proposing that the expansion of the universe was propelled by a repulsive gravitational force generated by an exotic form of matter" while you provide quotes from a popular science magazine plus 2 other briefs. This is why I think you are dishonest Philip, because you argue against something you know nothing about - right in the face of a mass of evidence contrary to your position which you have not read. It's not "my say-so" its the say so of all those books, videos and lectures you haven't bothered confirm. Do not argue I am wrong without investigating the evidence I have provided. That is the worst kind of dishonesty. Ace McWicked 07:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

here is a paper, by Guth, which completely backs up what I have said. Knock yourself out. Ace McWicked 07:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

and a video. Ace McWicked 08:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

OK then, I give you a breakdown of Inflation Theory... Yes. But the point of issue was what the universe came from. Isn't inflation what (supposedly) occurred just after it began? Philip J. Rayment 12:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Here how it started - you stated that big bang theorists stated the universe came from nothing when I told you that isn't the case and that you can't get something from nothing you replied I know, that's why the Big Bang is a load of malarky!. I then challenged you to find find one big bang theory that stated the universe actually comes from nothing. You chose Guth talking about his inflation theory. I went and explained Guth's inflation theory, with supporting cites, and how his nothing isn't what you and creationists think it is. Are you ready to admit the following -

• your, and creationists as a whole, use of Guth's quote is misleading and incorrect
• your comment that the big bang is a load of malarky because it proposes to come from nothing was based upon an uninformed opinion (this is not a admission that the big bang is right however)
• that it is a creationist strawman to say the big bang is proposed to come from nothing because it doesn't and you haven't shown it does.

Ace McWicked 00:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You chose Guth talking about his inflation theory. I chose Guth, and yes, Guth was talking about his inflation theory. But was that all he was talking about? Perhaps he was talking about his inflation theory and his ideas on what the universe came from? The point is, you have explained inflation theory, but you haven't explained away Guth's comments. If those comments are not from inflation theory, then perhaps he was talking about more than creation theory. Although I initially chose Guth, I also quoted others making, nay stressing, the same point.

As for the Big Bang itself coming from nothing, it appears to be the case that the Big Bang scientific hypothesis doesn't include the very very very start of the process, but the Big Bang idea or concept or scenario or viewpoint (take your pick) is that the universe came from nothing. Just like the evolution idea has life originating by chance from non-life, but the specific scientific hypothesis of biological evolution only kicks in once life has started.

Philip J. Rayment 13:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you read or watch any of my sources? Ace McWicked 14:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I read the last link and watched the last video. I don't recall on earlier ones. Philip J. Rayment 14:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Philip, I'm sorry but you can't try and tell me Guth was saying something he wasn't. All the sources have said the same thing and nothing you have said in any way refutes it. It is pure speculation, uninformed and ignorant speculation, to suggest otherwise. I have provided you with about 7 different sources now, 3 from Guths own mouth, and each one agrees with what I have said. I have conclusivly shown what Guth's comments meant and you have provided nothing expect for repeating the same comment as if it hasn't been addressed. You can deny it all you like but -

• your, and creationists as a whole, use of Guth's quote is misleading and incorrect
• your comment that the big bang is a load of malarky because it proposes to come from nothing was based upon an uninformed opinion (this is not a admission that the big bang is right however)
• it is a creationist strawman to say the big bang is proposed to come from nothing because it doesn't and you haven't shown it does.

the Big Bang idea or concept or scenario or viewpoint (take your pick) is that the universe came from nothing You have not provided any evidence of this and I have given plenty of evidence, from the mouths of Hawking, Krauss and Guth, to the contrary (I can give you much more but why should I continue and do the work when you have done nothing?).

Show me how the above is wrong or admit the fact that you are wrong about this. It is dishonest, and offensive, of you to insist I am incorrect when you haven't done any of the research. Ace McWicked 22:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

All the sources have said the same thing and nothing you have said in any way refutes it. I take that to read that all the sources have said the same thing about inflation. But my previous post suggested that Guth was talking in part about the beginning of the universe, not just about inflation. You haven't addressed that point.

I have conclusivly shown what Guth's comments meant and you have provided nothing expect for repeating the same comment as if it hasn't been addressed. On the contrary, you have explained inflation to me, but you have never directly addressed the particular comments I was quoting. Your argument seems to be, "PJR says that Guth said that matter came from nothing; Guth actually says elsewhere that it came from something, so PJR is wrong to say that Guth said it came from nothing". But Discover did have Guth saying that, and you've always ascribed error to me, not Discover. This makes me think that you are avoiding addressing what Discover said in favour of denigrating me and other creationists. The same applies to the quotes from other sources I provided. You have not explained why they said what they did. Simply claiming that "nothing" doesn't mean "nothing" when (a) they were stressing the "nothingness" of it, and (b) your "not nothing" could hardly be described as "nothing" in this context, doesn't wash. If I was as willing to denigrate as you, I would therefore describe your comments as "dishonest and offensive".

Philip J. Rayment 23:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

But my previous post suggested that Guth was talking in part about the beginning of the universe, not just about inflation. Speculation. The article was about Guth's inflation theory and there is nothing to suggest he was talking about anything else but. You have not provided one shred of a refutation. I have given numerous sources and explanations and you have provided nothing to support your position. This has nothing to do with denigrating you or creationists. Read the literature Philip, Guth's own bio which reads - Inflation is a modification of the conventional big bang theory, proposing that the expansion of the universe was propelled by a repulsive gravitational force generated by an exotic form of matter. In the video I linked above, a lecture by Guth himself, he discusses the beginning of the universe and he talks about it springing from a small patch of matter though a Quantum Phase Transistion. This paper, by Guth, explains his position on the origin of the universe in detail. It amazes me that you are so hung up on a single magazine article, ignoring all other explanations and further descriptions on what the article discusses. I have given you at least 7 (probably more) sources which describe, in detail, Inflation Theory, Guths ideas about where the universe came from and how it has been developed by other cosmologists. So -

• your, and creationists as a whole, use of Guth's quote is misleading and incorrect
• your comment that the big bang is a load of malarky because it proposes to come from nothing was based upon an uninformed opinion (this is not a admission that the big bang is right however)
• it is a creationist strawman to say the big bang is proposed to come from nothing because it doesn't and you haven't shown it does.

Creationists get things wrong sometimes and do not have exclusivity on right. Ace McWicked 23:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Speculation. The article was about Guth's inflation theory and there is nothing to suggest he was talking about anything else but. Yet I did provide evidence of such, and you are ignoring it.

You have not provided one shred of a refutation. I have given numerous sources and explanations and you have provided nothing to support your position. Utterly false. I have provided Guth's opinion, and you have not addressed that, as I have repeatedly pointed out.

It amazes me that you are so hung up on a single magazine article, ignoring all other explanations and further descriptions on what the article discusses. It (almost, but I'm used to it) amazes me that you ignore, to the point of denial, the explanation that I do provide.

This has nothing to do with denigrating you or creationists. Yet you keep repeating your dot points denigrating creationists without addressing what I'm saying.

Creationists get things wrong sometimes and do not have exclusivity on right. I've never said otherwise. Do you agree that the reverse is also true? That creationists get things right sometimes, and that evolutionists don't have exclusivity on it?

Philip J. Rayment 06:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Utterly false. I have provided Guth's opinion, and you have not addressed that, as I have repeatedly pointed out. Firstly I have addressed this with multiple cites. You on the other hand have not given me Guth's opinion - all you have done is given me your interpretation of Guth's statements and have ignored statements by Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Fred Adams plus several from Guth himself including his own book, wikipedia page, bio, and a video lecture on the subject and paper detailing his thoughts on the origin of the universe plus my entire dissertation on the topic. Show me where I am wrong because at the moment all I see is obstinate fool who can't admit that he is incorrect. Ace McWicked 07:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly I have addressed this with multiple cites. You on the other hand have not given me Guth's opinion - all you have done is given me your interpretation of Guth's statements ... False. I didn't merely give my opinion, I provided a direct quote from the magazine article.

...and have ignored statements by Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Fred Adams plus several from Guth himself including his own book, wikipedia page, bio, and a video lecture on the subject and paper... Did any of those sources specifically comment on the Discover article or the specific comments made in that article?

Put it this way. I provided the quote, "The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada." Now, which of the following are you claiming?

• I fabricated the quote.
• I took the quote out of context (and if so, what relevant context did I omit).
• I quoted correctly and in context, but Discover has grossly misrepresented Guth; he didn't say anything like that.
• I quoted correctly and in context, Discover has correctly represented Guth's views, but perhaps Discover got a nuance wrong.
• something else.

That's two questions and I would like two answers.

Philip J. Rayment 14:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

False. I didn't merely give my opinion, I provided a direct quote from the magazine article. Yes you have provided a direct quote but you have excluded all elucidations on the topic, and I have provided you with many, in favour of your own understanding which is in direct conflict with the theory itself. This is very poor research on your part.

Did any of those sources specifically comment on the Discover article or the specific comments made in that article? All the sources relate directly to inflation theory which is what the Discover article was about and all my sources discuss what it means for a universe to come from nothing. The Discover magazine has given you a brief rundown of Guth's Inflation theory which elicits one to find further information on the topic. One might want to read Guths book after the reading the article (which I did and you apparently have not). Discover magazine has only given a rundown - this is important - a brief rundown on the topic. So to answer your second question I'd say something else. The magazine has given you an idea of the topic and I have provided you with the fuller picture and the greater theory. I have provided numourous links detailing Guth's "Zip, nada, nothing", what it means, how it works and how it explains the universe we see. So my question to you is why have ignored every piece of evidence I have provided you with explaining exactly what a universe from nothing means, from some of the greatest cosmological minds, including Guth himself, in favour of your intepretation of single magazine article which doesn't even discuss the theory in full? Ace McWicked 23:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I like this. Ace provides multiple serious sources, and knows what he is talking about. Philip, on the other hand, is hanging his whole ignorance on a popular magazine that reduces "science" to sound bites and pretty pictures. Philip, you might want to rad a book or twenty on of these days, in order to better understand the science you decry. ħuman 04:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes you have provided a direct quote... Ah, good. So you concede that you were incorrect to claim that all I had done was to give my own interpretation.

All the sources relate directly to inflation theory which is what the Discover article was about and all my sources discuss what it means for a universe to come from nothing. In other words, no, they didn't directly address the Discover article.

So to answer your second question I'd say something else. Okay. So you agree that I didn't fabricate the quote, nor did I take it out of context, nor did Discover misrepresent Guth. Therefore it follows that my use of Guth's quote stands. That is, regardless how much you explain Guth's inflation in trying to avoid the issue, the fact remains that Guth believes that the universe came from nothing.

So my question to you is why have ignored every piece of evidence I have provided you with explaining exactly what a universe from nothing means, from some of the greatest cosmological minds, including Guth himself... Because they don't address the fact that Guth believes that the universe comes from nothing, as correctly (according to you) reported by Discover and as correctly (according to you) quoted by me. And because your explanation that "nothing" doesn't really mean "nothing" doesn't gel with that.

...in favour of your intepretation of single magazine article which doesn't even discuss the theory in full? There you go again, ascribing it to "my interpretation", when you have already admitted that it wasn't just my interpretation, but a direct quote from Discover, and trying to marginalise that article despite admitting that it was essentially correct.

Philip, on the other hand, is hanging his whole ignorance on a popular magazine that reduces "science" to sound bites and pretty pictures. But which Ace has admitted was essentially correct on this point, and has further admitted that the sources he cited were not directly addressing that.

Philip, you might want to ... better understand the science you decry. When are you going to stop falsely claiming that I decry science?

Philip J. Rayment 13:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"falsely" ? Hamster 18:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Errr no Philip - Alan Guth's Inflation Theory postulates that the Universe as we know it began some 13.7 Billion years ago when a piece of exotic matter underwent a quantum phase transition causing an exponential expansion as detailed in his book, lectures, papers, own university bio and wikipedia page. This confirmed by several other well known cosmologists. Please do your homework because hanging your entire argument on a single quote is a very very poor argument tactic. And because your explanation that "nothing" doesn't really mean "nothing" doesn't gel with that yes it does gel with that because every source I have given, from Guth himself, goes on to explain what he means and gives you further insight into what was briefly discussed in the magazine. Why have you ignored every other piece of evidence i have given when it directly relates to the conversation at hand in favour of a short magazine article that doesn't discuss the theory in full?. Ace McWicked 21:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"falsely" ? Yes, falsely. I don't decry science at all.

Errr no Philip - Alan Guth's Inflation Theory postulates that the Universe as we know it began some 13.7 Billion years ago when a piece of exotic matter underwent a quantum phase transition... A "piece of exotic matter"? So now you're claiming that Discover got it wrong when it said that according to Guth it came from "nothing"? Is that correct?

...hanging your entire argument on a single quote is a very very poor argument tactic. But of course you know this to be false, because I've pointed out numerous times that I've also quoted a number of other sources.

yes it does gel with that... How can "nothing—zero, nada" gel with "exotic matter"? If someone says that a baby came from mummy's tummy, you can explain that what it really means is that the baby came from the mother's uterus. This is legitimate because "tummy" is a non-technical term for that part of the body. But if someone claims that the baby was brought by a stork, you can't claim that what that really means is that they come from the uterus. Saying that "nothing—zero, nada" is actually "exotic matter" is like claiming that the baby was brought by a stork; the two are contradictory claims. So either Discover was wrong, in which case why blame the creationists, or Discover was right. Which is it?

Why have you ignored every other piece of evidence i have given... Why keep repeating a claim that I have already refuted? I have not ignored every other piece of evidence. I specifically told you that I watched the video and read the link that you gave me above in posts of 07:31 and 08:01 of 5th August, and they are not the only ones which I read/watched. But they did not address this particular claim.

Philip J. Rayment 23:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Discover magazine has given a brief on the topic - Discover magazine is guilty only of brevity (and possibly a small measure of sensationalism), I have provided you with numerous expansions on the same topic. You ignore all other explanations and focus on a single quote. Good to know what your standards are Philip. Ace McWicked 23:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Since you like Discover magazine so much "In Alan Guth’s original scenario, inflation represented a temporary period in which the early universe was dominated by false-vacuum energy, which then went through a phase transition to convert to ordinary matter and radiation. But it was eventually realized that inflation could be eternal — unavoidable quantum fluctuations could keep inflation going in some places, even if it turns off elsewhere. In fact, even if it turns off “almost everywhere,” the tiny patches that continue to inflate will grow exponentially in volume." Ace McWicked 23:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The mistake you are making Philip is what nothing relates to - each source I have shown - about 9 or more now, describes in detail that nothing is a false vacuum state within the Higgs field. Ace McWicked 23:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

More from Discover - Several physicists, including Guth, have toyed with this idea, calculating the materials and conditions required to trigger inflation in a laboratory. (You’d need only about 20 pounds of matter, Guth decided, but you’d have to squash it down to subatomic size...) Ace McWicked 00:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

More on nothing and Higgs field. Ace McWicked 00:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Even more... Ace McWicked 00:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Summary of arguments thus far

Philip stated the big bang is a load of "malarky" because it postulates something coming from nothing. I asked Philip to provide me with one big bang theory/theorist that states the universe comes for nothing. Philip chose Alan Guth based on this article from discover magazine wherein Guth describes the universe coming from nothing.
In response I said the artcile is slightly misleading in it's brevity and (possible) sensationalism. I then provided the following -

• An essay on Inflation theory and what "nothing" means in physics based on my 10 years reading of the topic
• This book by Fred Adams and Greg Laughlin
• this book by Carlos I. Calle
• The Inflationary Universe by Alan Guth himself
• The Origin of the Universe - a video from Stephen Hawking
• A Universe from Nothing - a video from Lawrence Krauss
• Guths bio on his MIT page
• a technical paper by Guth
• a video lecture by Guth
• wikipedia Guth wikipedia page
• A discover magazine article discussing Guth's theory
• a second article in the same vein
• more on the physics of nothing
• more on the physics of nothing

Now I have been to the library and have hired Guth's book where he sets out his ideas and if PJR would like me to I can call him on skype and read it to him.
I'll also offer you a quote from page 254 - 255 of The Inflationary Universe by Alan Guth -

• "In contrast to the standard big bang recipe the inflationary version calls for only a single ingredient: A region of false vacuum. And the region not be very large....a patch of false vacuum 10^-26 centimeters across is all the recipe demands..The sign of an exponent can make a big difference: in more recognizable units, the required mass is about 25 grams, or roughly one ounce! So, in the inflationary theory the universe evolves from essentially nothing at all which is why I frequently refer to it as the ultimate free lunch"

In light all the above sources which completely support my argument - Philip, are you still going to argue with me about Guth and his ideas based up on a brief article in a popular science magazine? Are there any other sources you can provide to defend your position? Ace McWicked 01:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion continued

Discover magazine has given a brief on the topic - Discover magazine is guilty only of brevity (and possibly a small measure of sensationalism)... So, like saying that the baby came from Mummy's tummy, it's description is brief, but not inaccurate. I have explained how "Mummy's tummy" can be reconciled with "the mother's uterus", but you have not explained how "nothing—zero, nada" can be reconciled with "exotic matter".

You ignore all other explanations and focus on a single quote. Given that I have specifically told you that I have not ignored every other piece of evidence. I specifically told you that I watched the video and read the link that you gave... and also that I've pointed out numerous times that I've also quoted a number of other sources, and you've not even attempted to refute those particular points, isn't this claim of yours an outright lie? Aren't you being more blatantly deceitful than I've been accused of?

I long ago agreed that "nothing" does not have to mean absolutely nothing at all, but something which essentially amounts to nothing. You say that...nothing is a false vacuum state within the Higgs field. So is it, or is it not, appropriate to call this false vacuum state "nothing"? Actually, I think that Guth has already answered the question: in the inflationary theory the universe evolves from essentially nothing at all which is why I frequently refer to it as the ultimate free lunch. So it is entirely appropriate to call this "nothing".

Philip J. Rayment 13:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. So your, and creationists, use of Guth's quote is misleading, the big bang doesn't just magically appear from nothing but in fact from "a patch of false vacuum 10^-26 centimeters across...the required mass is about 25 grams, or roughly one ounce!" which is completely different to what you continually claimed and I have now answered "How can "nothing—zero, nada" gel with "exotic matter"?" with a quote from Guth's book which explains why he calls it "the ultimate free lunch" or, nothing (please note I cannot see where the line appear "nothing—zero, nada" appears in the article). If you want to keep drawing your attention to a magazine article instead of actually reading Guth then by all means do so but Guth explains quite clearly what he means in his book.

Each of of your other sources all refer to nothing granted, but I have repeatedly shown what nothing means in physics.

You said you read the paper and watched the video but I provided 14 sources, how many did you check? If you checked them all then how come you keep making the same mistake? Each one of them fully backed up every claim I made.

I have also shown how it is a creationist strawman to claim atheists claim the nothing happened to nothing to form everything because I have shown many times over, in physics nothing is something. It taken since February 25^th to get you to understand what Guth meant after you continually spouted lines like -

• Apart from them, it seems, "nothing" is really nothing. As such, the article's quote is accurate.
• It seems to me that Guth is saying that the "nothing" is really nothing in both matter and energy terms
• Big Bang apologists do claim that the Big Bang came from something, but others say it came from nothing
• the ones I quoted clearly state—even stress—that it's out of nothing.

When you were making those claims did you have any knowledge of the false vacuum and quantum phase transitions? Any idea about Guth's theory and what Quantum Physics said nothing actually was? No, I don't think you did. Now I have explained it in detail you seem to saying you knew it all along. I am guessing you are less than honest.

Yes, it is entirely appropriate to call this "nothing" but you were stressing, even after my repeated explanations and sources, that it wasn't the quantum mechanical nothing, you continually stressed that it was a classical nothing. Guth's nothing was as he has stated, a patch of vacuum energy within the Higgs field which is under rule by the uncertainty principle. Guth's nothing is a quantum fluctuation. As I have shown repeatedly - this is not what you were stressing Philip and it is dishonest of you to suggest so. Unless, are you suggesting that all along you knew Guth's idea of nothing was a small patch of exotic matter within a false vacuum?

So when you stated I know, that's why the Big Bang is a load of malarky! what you meant was "The Big Bang is a load of malarky because it proposes that the entire universe was caused by when a small patch of exotic matter within the Higgs field under went a quantum phase transition which lead to a rapid expansion of time and space driven by the repulsive energy of gravity"?

Ace McWicked 20:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. So your, and creationists, use of Guth's quote is misleading,... No.

...completely different to what you continually claimed... What I quoted, and no, it's not completely different.

You said you read the paper and watched the video but I provided 14 sources, how many did you check? I have already said I read the last link and watched the last video. I don't recall on earlier ones. I have read at least some of the others you have provided since.

If you checked them all then how come you keep making the same mistake? What mistake? I haven't made one.

I have also shown how it is a creationist strawman to claim atheists claim the nothing happened to nothing to form everything... It's not a strawman when they actually do claim that, as I have shown they do.

... because I have shown many times over, in physics nothing is something. So what do you call nothing that is not something?

It taken since February 25^th to get you to understand what Guth meant... I always understood that he was talking about "nothing—zero, nada".

When you were making those claims did you have any knowledge of the false vacuum and quantum phase transitions? Any idea about Guth's theory and what Quantum Physics said nothing actually was? No, I don't think you did. Now I have explained it in detail you seem to saying you knew it all along. I am guessing you are less than honest. I'm not saying that I knew the precise details all along, but I long ago said that I realised "nothing" didn't have to mean "absolutely nothing at all", yet you are now acting as if my awareness of this is something new and that I'm being dishonest in implying that it's not something new.

...you were stressing, even after my repeated explanations and sources, that it wasn't the quantum mechanical nothing, you continually stressed that it was a classical nothing. No, I did not. I acknowledged long ago that the "nothing" didn't have to mean "absolutely nothing at all".

...it is dishonest of you to suggest so. Unless, are you suggesting that all along you knew Guth's idea of nothing was a small patch of exotic matter within a false vacuum? I explained (not merely "knew") long ago (in a response that you refused to address) that Guth believed that the laws of physics predated the universe, and that it was these laws that allowed the universe to come into existence. I didn't go into just what those laws were or what ones were applicable. But then there's another question: does your (and Guth's, etc.) explanation of a false vacuum really mean that something didn't come from nothing? That is, isn't this merely an explanation of how something supposedly came from nothing? Paul Davies: "… spacetime could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition. … Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation … Yet the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing." So did the universe really come from something (as you seem to be asserting), or have you merely tried to explain how it came from nothing? There's also another point: Why would you get a universe from a quantum fluctuation?

Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their ‘quantum vacuum’ is a lot of matter-antimatter potential—not ‘nothing’. Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or a cat which appeared. This universe can’t have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it would not have any properties until it actually came into existence. —

I've detected in evolutionists a tactic of seeming to give an answer, but, when pressed, claiming that the answer is only a partial answer. Evolution is supposed to explain life without God, but when pressed, evolutionists back away from explaining the origin of life (i.e. abiogenesis). Here, the Big Bang is supposed to explain how the universe began without God, but, when pressed, its proponents back away from explaining the very beginning, claiming that the Big Bang only explains what happened after it started. So although the explanation purports to explain how God is not required, when pressed on the details, they concede that the explanations are not really complete, and accuse the creationists of misrepresenting.

Philip J. Rayment 03:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I am a little bit confused here Philip.

You seem to be saying you knew all along that when a cosmologists or any other qualified physicist/whatever states the universe came from nothing they didn’t actually mean absolutely nothing but in fact meant from something they referred as nothing (in the quantum physical sense), be that quantum fluctuations or brane collisions within higher dimensions, whatever. You state you didn’t really know what that nothing meant, aside from it not being absolutely nothing, but you argued against my explanations anyway? How could you know I was incorrect?

When I challenged you to find me a big bang theory that states the universe comes from nothing did you think I was challenging you to find me a big bang theory that states the universe was produced from a quantum fluctuation from within the Higgs Field? Because that is what you provided but at the time you were stressing the absolute nothingness of it -

• Apart from them, it seems, "nothing" is really nothing. As such, the article's quote is accurate.
• It seems to me that Guth is saying that the "nothing" is really nothing in both matter and energy terms
• Big Bang apologists do claim that the Big Bang came from something, but others say it came from nothing
• the ones I quoted clearly state—even stress—that it's out of nothing.

So what did you think you were arguing? In the above were you stressing that "nothing" was the quantum mechanical nothing?

You also continually argued against what I was saying but have now admitted you hadn’t actually checked my sources have read at least some of the others you have provided since.. That, sir, is a dishonest debate technique. Particularly from a person who stated I continually get frustrated at anti-creationists arguing against an idea that they clearly haven't studied sufficiently, or in many cases apparently not at all (except from anti-creationist sources).

When you said “The big bang is a bunch of malarky!” in response to my comment you can’t get something from nothing what is it you were referring to? Did you mean “The Big Bang is a load of malarky because it proposes that the entire universe was caused by when a small patch of exotic matter within the Higgs field underwent a quantum phase transition which lead to a rapid expansion of time and space driven by the repulsive energy of gravity" or were you referring to some other Big Bang theory?

The quote you keep mentioning “Nothing – zero, nada” does not appear to be in the article and seems to only be on the cover. Are you sure you can then attribute it to Guth? And if so, are you telling me you knew Guth was referring to “a small patch of matter” when he made that comment?

And if it isn’t a creationist strawman then they are actually stating the idea of a universe being created through a quantum phase transition is ridiculous and not suggesting that cosmologists think the universe sprang from absolutely nothing? Ace McWicked 05:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are thirsty and looking for a drink, and I say that there's nothing in the fridge, what I mean is not that there's nothing at all in the fridge, but that there's nothing useful to quenching a thirst. When an astronomer says that there's nothing in outer space, he doesn't mean nothing at all; he recognises that there is energy and some dust. When a Big Bang proponent says that the universe came from nothing, I can accept that he doesn't necessarily mean absolutely nothing at all, but, especially when he stresses the nothingness of it, he must mean nothing in some meaningful sense. I'm not saying that I realised from the very beginning that the "nothing" might mean some laws of physics, but I did conclude that early on, and I can accept that that counts as "nothing". But the point still is that it amounts to nothing in some very real sense relevant to cosmology.

...you argued against my explanations anyway? How could you know I was incorrect? Your explanations were not saying "Yes, it's 'nothing', although 'nothing' doesn't exclude there being laws of physics that supposedly allow something to come from nothing". Rather, you were saying "No, you are wrong, it wasn't 'nothing'", in complete contradiction to the quotes I gave. That is, you weren't agreeing and elaborating; you were disagreeing with what Guth and others said (although claiming to agree with what they meant).

You ... have now admitted you hadn’t actually checked my sources... You accuse me of having a "dishonest debate technique"??? I didn't admit to not checking your sources. Rather, I said that I checked at least some of them, but I couldn't recall how many. I may have checked them all (at least the on-line ones), but I can't be sure, so didn't claim that.

When you said “The big bang is a bunch of malarky!” in response to my comment you can’t get something from nothing what is it you were referring to? That the Big Bang proposes that the universe came from (essentially) nothing for no reason. That some cosmologists might have a fanciful explanation on how this supposedly happened doesn't change that.

The quote you keep mentioning “Nothing – zero, nada” does not appear to be in the article and seems to only be on the cover. Are you sure you can then attribute it to Guth? I'm not claiming it to be a direct quote. But direct quotes, such as the one about the free lunch, are consistent with this.

And if it isn’t a creationist strawman then they are actually stating the idea of a universe being created through a quantum phase transition is ridiculous and not suggesting that cosmologists think the universe sprang from absolutely nothing? Various cosmologists stress the nothingness of it, so where's the straw-man?

Philip J. Rayment 13:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, now we are very close to ending this!

Now we can agree that big bang theories propose the universe was created from something (exotic matter) by something (quantum mechanical tunneling) and that is colloquially called nothing.

I have shown, with strong references, that nothing in the quantum physics should not be confused with absolutely nothing in the classical sense. Its the same word, nothing, but describing two different things.

I have shown what those cosmologists meant when they were discussing the beginning of the universe with numerous references that doesn't contradict what they said but elaborated on what they were saying because you seemed to be getting confused. I provided you with the information so you could learn about what they meant and about how it was different to what you were suggesting they meant.

So now, when you are proposing the big bang is a bunch of malarkey you can carry on and state its because you believe the idea of a small patch of exotic matter being affected by quantum mechanical tunneling is ridiculous.

I have shown you what Guth meant by a "free lunch" which you agree is consistent with "Nothing – zero, nada". That is, it is a small patch of exotic matter that underwent a quantum phase transition.

If creationists are using the quantum mechanical nothing then, no, it is a not a strawman but I still find it misleading to merely quote a cosmologists but not explain what it is they are actually referring to, which is quantum mechanical fluctuations affecting a tiny piece of matter.

I think we are about done now. Ace McWicked 20:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Now we can agree that big bang theories propose the universe was created from something (exotic matter) by something (quantum mechanical tunneling) and that is colloquially called nothing So you agree that it's okay to call that "nothing", because that quantum fluctuation somehow produces a universe (it's not explained why a universe in particular should be the result) from some hypothetical entity referred to as "exotic matter". And therefore the Big Bang essentially claims that something came from nothing, in a very real sense of the word, as original claimed. If a creationist had proposed such a tortured explanation for something coming from nothing for no reason, he'd simply be laughed at and the explanation dismissed as invoking a miracle. So why the big argument when you essentially agree that the "explanation" is that something came from nothing? Philip J. Rayment 13:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the disagreement boils down to a question of tone. In my experience, neither side of the discussion likes to be accused of saying that things were "poofed into existence" - they feel demeaned. Perhaps Ace thought that the "out of nothing" phrasing belittled the big bang. Everyone is understandably sensitive about their own hobby-horses.--CPalmer 16:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Question of tone? Ace made a clear record that Philip's repeated references to "nothing" here were grossly misleading because the "nothing" Guth refers to requires a caveat as big as the universe itself. That's why people with general knowledge look like absolute cretins arguing technical matters outside their ken. I've seen it from creationists here before, recently in the context of the falsifiability discussions. Ace's discussion with Philip persisted for nearly 4 months because of Philip's smug deflection and chest pounding. His behavior here is a great example of why regular folks hold creationists in contempt. Plain and simple. Teh Terrible Asp 18:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Why the big argument? Because Philip you have disagreed and disagreed with me without providing any insight to why you disagreed except to repeat the same line taken from a magazine cover plus a couple of other quotes which I explained from the very beginning. You steadfastly refused to share your knowledge when asked and only now when the evidence is overwhelming you start saying you knew it all along. Something is very fishy and I don't think you had any knowledge of Guths theory, at least you never demonstrated any. You said you knew that cosmologists maybe didn't mean absolutely nothing but kept arguing even though you had no idea what you were arguing against! This whole discussion has shown two things - you are a hypocrite (all your references to anti-creationist arguing against something they don't understand) and you are arrogant (in your believe that you were correct without checking first). Also creationists are either deliberately misleading (via stating the universe comes from nothing which is the correct words but do creationists follow it up with what nothing in the quantum mechanical sense means and why it is ridiculous? I have never seen it) or they stupidly repeat what they have heard without doing any of the research. I put CMI in the first category and you in the second. Ace McWicked 20:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Ace thought that the "out of nothing" phrasing belittled the big bang. The phrase "Nothing – zero, nada" was written by a reporter who was not antagonistic to the idea.

...the "nothing" Guth refers to requires a caveat as big as the universe itself. If that was truly the case, you would expect that the sentence would have been 'out of "nothing"', where the "nothing" was in quotes. That's normal grammar for using a word in an unusual manner, such as requiring a big caveat. But instead, the "nothingness" was emphasised, just the opposite of something requiring a big caveat.

Ace's discussion with Philip persisted for nearly 4 months because of Philip's smug deflection and chest pounding. It may have had something to do with Ace's continual denials that I'd quoted more than one source, and his continued (to this day) refusal to address—or even acknowledge (see his post above)—the post where I addressed the Discover article in detail.

His behavior here is a great example of why regular folks hold creationists in contempt. Because they put up arguments that the only option is to ignore them, go into denial, or get angry?

Philip you have disagreed and disagreed with me without providing any insight to why you disagreed... Nonsense. I explained my disagreement in some detail.

...except to repeat the same line taken from a magazine cover plus a couple of other quotes which I explained from the very beginning. On the contrary, not only did I address the article as a whole, you repeatedly referred to the "one quote", as though I had made no others.

You steadfastly refused to share your knowledge when asked and only now when the evidence is overwhelming you start saying you knew it all along. Again wrong. In that response that you refuse to address, I then explained what you now claim I only recently claimed to have known all along. That is, I then claimed that I accepted that "nothing" may not necessarily mean "absolutely nothing at all". I have also pointed this fact out to you before.

You said you knew that cosmologists maybe didn't mean absolutely nothing but kept arguing even though you had no idea what you were arguing against! I did have some idea what I was arguing against.

This whole discussion has shown two things - you are a hypocrite (all your references to anti-creationist arguing against something they don't understand) ... Except that you have not shown that I didn't understand anything that is pertinent. You base your accusation of hypocrisy at least in part on the particular claim of me only recently acknowledging that "nothing" does not necessarily mean "absolutely nothing", yet I acknowledged that ages ago. So your accusation is based on a false claim.

...and you are arrogant (in your believe that you were correct without checking first). Again, you base that on me supposedly not knowing something that I in fact long ago acknowledged.

Also creationists are either deliberately misleading ... or they stupidly repeat what they have heard without doing any of the research. Given your false claims above about what I knew when, this should be taken with a grain of salt.

Philip J. Rayment 13:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

For gods sake Philip! What is wrong with you? Why can't you admit that you didn't know what you were talking about, you had no idea to what inflation theory was and what Guth was talking about, you incorrectly attributed a line from magazine cover to Guth when there was no evidence he even said those words and your line "That's why the Big Bang is a load of malarkey!" was based on an incorrect assumption and uninformed opinion. Are so arrogance as to not even admit where wrong? Or are you as arrogant and revolting as I have already charged? Ace McWicked 20:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing new in your rant. I've answered it all before. But to summarise, I long ago acknowledged that "nothing" may not mean "absolutely nothing", but that doesn't mean that it means something relevant. Just as someone looking for a drink is told that there is "nothing in the fridge" doesn't mean "nothing at all", but "nothing to drink", the "something" that is the "nothing" doesn't change the "nothing" in a substantive way. That Guth has an explanation of how something can supposedly come from "nothing" (because the "nothing" is not absolutely nothing) doesn't change that he's still essentially claiming that something comes from nothing. Are you so arrogant as to not even admit that you were wrong about the substantive part of the argument—that Guth argues that something comes from nothing, even though he has an explanation of how this could supposedly happen? Or is it only me who's expected to admit when I'm wrong? Philip J. Rayment 13:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

How am I wrong? Show me where I am wrong? You were throwing around quotes, calling the big bang a load of malaraky. I asked you to clarify over and over again what you understood these quotes to mean because I felt if you were going to criticize something you should at least know what it is you are criticizing . You failed to do so despite repeated asking, provided nothing and made me do all the work. I explained it to you - you say that's what you meant all along and now I am incorrect? You are being dishonest. Ace McWicked 20:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Simply claiming that "nothing" doesn't mean "nothing" when (a) they were stressing the "nothingness" of it, and (b) your "not nothing" could hardly be described as "nothing" in this context, doesn't wash. If you knew all along what Guth and the others meant why did you make this comment? Ace McWicked 21:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

But was that all he was talking about? Perhaps he was talking about his inflation theory and his ideas on what the universe came from? The point is, you have explained inflation theory, but you haven't explained away Guth's comments. And this one. There are many more where you suggest Guth and the others are stressing absolutely nothing and where you question what Guth means. If you already knew why make such comments? Ace McWicked 21:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

How am I wrong? Show me where I am wrong? You were wrong to keep claiming that I based my comments all on one quote, that I had not explained things further, that I had not earlier acknowledged that "nothing" need not be "absolutely nothing", and that I am being dishonest. You were wrong to claim/imply that the "something" makes a real difference to the argument.

If you knew all along what Guth and the others meant why did you make this comment? A link to see the context would have been nice, but probably because, to repeat from my last post, he's still essentially claiming that something comes from nothing.

If you already knew why make such comments? Same reason.

Philip J. Rayment 12:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That I had not earlier acknowledged that "nothing" need not be "absolutely nothing" yes you had but not in regards to Guth nor the other evidence/quotes you gave. See here - where I say "The Big Bang coming "out of nothing" argument, as PJR states it, is a little misleading. Out of nothing doesn't mean out of a zero state." and your response is I would say that your comment is misleading. I've already acknowledged that some Big Bang apologists do argue that it's not actually out of nothing, but the ones I quoted clearly state—even stress—that it's out of nothing. And who did you quote? Alan Guth. If you knew what Alan Guth actually proposed and that nothing had a different meaning in quantum physics why did you argue against my comment, using Guth as your example of how I was wrong on 25th February in the above linked section and by drawing a distinction between some saying it's not absolutely nothing and Guth et al stressing nothing? Ace McWicked 21:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least you've supplied a link now, so we can get a bit more specific. When I said that I had earlier acknowledged that "nothing" need not be "absolutely nothing", I was not referring to that post (08:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC). I made two different points, and I was referring to the other point. That is, I said (a) that some claim it was from something, whilst others, including Guth, say (and stress) that it was nothing (the one you cite), and (b) that Guth's "nothing" was not "absolutely nothing", but still amounted to essentially nothing. That second point, the one I have been referring to, was my post of 11:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC) here, which is specifically talking about Guth (and which, incidentally, is the post I keep reminding you that you've never really addressed). (I think I expanded on point (b) somewhere, but perhaps it's on a different page, because I can't readily see it on that page.) Philip J. Rayment 13:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You were saying that Guth and the others stressed nothing. You wrapped Guth up with all your other quotes of people stressing nothing as distinct from those who think it came from something. Then later you changed your statement and suggested Guth was talking about how he only means the laws of physics describe how something can come from nothing but he still stresses nothing. Now. months later, you are suggesting that Guth meant more than the laws of physics and that you knew what he meant all along. Philip, stop being so dishonest. You have changed tact so many times and now you are twisting in the wind with word play. I have the whole conversation documented on RW and through reading it you can see how often you have twisted, turned, doubled back and changed your entire argument. Each time you change your argument in light of further explanations and evidence from me you state that is what you meant the entire time. You construct such an elaborate maze of arguments that you can never be wrong (Although I can follow it as I have it all documented). Are you lying to me or to yourself I wonder... Ace McWicked 20:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Then later, March, you changed your statement and suggested Guth was talking about how he only means the laws of physics describe how something can come from nothing but he still stresses nothing. No, I didn't change my statement. I added to it. It didn't change the basic facts.

Now, months later, you are suggesting that Guth meant more than the laws of physics and that you knew what he meant all along. No, I'm not suggesting that Guth meant more than the laws of physics, at least not substantially more.

Philip, stop being so dishonest. This coming from the person who repeatedly claimed that I was only quoting the one person (Guth) when I wasn't and repeatedly said so, and that I merely quoted Guth rather than explaining what he meant, when I repeatedly pointed out otherwise. Try looking in a mirror.

I have the whole conversation documented on RW... And I have it documented on aSK, which is the original. Your point?

Each time you change your argument in light of further explanations and evidence from me you state that is what you meant the entire time. Only I haven't changed my argument in any material sense.

You construct such an elaborate maze of arguments that you can never be wrong (Although I can follow it as I have it all documented)... If you can follow it, why do you keep getting so much of it wrong? And why did it take you so long to accept that I had acknowledged that "nothing" need not be "absolutely nothing" ages ago?

Are you lying to me or to yourself I wonder... Says the person who repeatedly claimed that I was only quoting one person despite being repeatedly corrected on this claim, and...

Philip J. Rayment 12:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC

Edit Break

When I say I have the whole conversation on RW I mean I have it all on one page where I can follow your intricate web of word salad without having to switch pages. And by looking back and referring against your latest comments things don’t add up. You have changed your argument.

This started with me telling you that you can’t get something from nothing and you saying “I know, that’s why the Big Bang is a load of malarkey!” I told you that no one states the Big Bang came from absolutely nothing and you agreed some didn’t but then explicitly implied that Alan Guth and 4 – 5 others stressed it did.

I had acknowledged that "nothing" need not be "absolutely nothing" ages ago? Yes but see my comment above, you excluded Guth and your other examples from your acknowledgement and went on to use Guth to try and prove that some Big Bang cosmologists believed it came from absolutely nothing.

Now you agree with me that Guth doesn’t believe it is absolutely nothing which means you have changed what you were saying.

I merely quoted Guth rather than explaining what he meant This is very telling because you couldn’t explain to me what he meant, you were merely quoting and when asked to provide an understanding of what he meant you couldn’t do it and even acknowledged to me you didn’t really know what it meant but you continually argued against my explanations without providing a single reference to counter the 14 odd references I have given you.

And now, even after provide you with a mass of references including comments from Guth’s own book and his videos where he discusses what he actually means you are still not suggesting that Guth meant more than the laws of physics, at least not substantially more. when it is quite obvious that he does mean substantially more and even says in his lecture that he believes there was a significant prehistory before our universe inflated from the patch of false vacuum 10^-26 centimeters across…about 25 grams, or roughly one ounce.

Do you not think you are a hypocrite for constantly arguing against an idea that you studied sufficiently? Ace McWicked 21:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Later......

several phrases from a variety of sources that stressed the nothingness of it: "absolutely nothing—zero, nada", "nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing" (emphasis in original), "literally nothing". you do know that this has been explained to you right? Why are you still stressing the absolute nothing of it, using the same quotes? Ace McWicked 00:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Ace's logic:

1. I make a claim.
2. Ace gives his version of the facts.
3. I dispute his version.
4. Steps 2 and 3 are repeated numerous times.

Later...

1. I make the claim again.
2. Ace condescendingly points out that he has explained my alleged error as though his explanation settled the matter, ignoring that his explanation has been disputed and rejected.

He also personalises my comments. I was explaining to Quantheory that it wasn't a bland "something from nothing" that we were talking about, and cited sources which stressed the nothingness. Yet (despite this being pointed out to him before), he says that I am stressing the nothingness.

Philip J. Rayment 03:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Philip's logic

1. He makes a claim
2. I disagree and make a counter claim
3. Philip provides a few quotes
4. I provide detailed references to support my claim from the internet, go to the library to hire a book that specifically address Philip claims and explain in detail why Philips claim is incorrect.
5. Philips handwaves it all away and continues to make the incorrect claim without providing a single piece of counter evidence and stubbornly repeats the same quotes as if the haven't been explained to him already and explained by Stephen Hawking, Alan Guth, Lawrence Krauss and other leaders in the feild.

What have I not explained enough Philip? What do you not understand? Explanation has been disputed and rejected? What part of my explanations do you dispute and reject? Ace McWicked 05:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't just "provide a few quotes", and neither do I "handwave it all away". I reject your characterisation. Philip J. Rayment 13:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You have provided no counter arguments to my 14+ references aside from the same quotes. I provided references from the leading cosmologists of today which disagree with your interpretation and you have handwaved it away. It's not my characterisation you are rejecting, its theirs. What do you disagree with? What is incorrect? Ace McWicked 00:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't provide counter argument to your 14+ references because I wasn't disagreeing with that they were saying about inflation. What I disagree with is that Guth wasn't really saying that something essentially came from nothing. Philip J. Rayment 14:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

So, what is you think Guth is really saying - specifically? And what are you basing that on? Ace McWicked 20:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I make these edits

Remove word nothing as it is the same thing as quantum fluctuation, change the reference to Guth's own book as opposed to a magazine, link to Guth's lecture aids regarding chaotic inflation. Then I explain my revisions -

Changed References

I have changed the link from the discover magazine to Guth's own book as it is a better indicator of his views and is far more scholarly than a pop science magazine. One is a summary from a science journalist but the other is Guth's own words from his own book. Ace McWicked 22:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Also changed the comment because from nothing is the same as quantum fluctuation in the vacuum. Ace McWicked 00:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

To support my changes I offer the following evidence

• An essay on Inflation theory and what "nothing" means in physics based on my 10 years reading of the topic
• This book by Fred Adams and Greg Laughlin
• this book by Carlos I. Calle
• The Inflationary Universe by Alan Guth himself
• The Origin of the Universe - a video from Stephen Hawking
• A Universe from Nothing - a video from Lawrence Krauss
• Guths bio on his MIT page
• a technical paper by Guth
• a video lecture by Guth
• wikipedia Guth wikipedia page
• A discover magazine article discussing Guth's theory
• a second article in the same vein
• more on the physics of nothing
• more on the physics of nothing
• The Physics of Nothing - how the universe was born
• From New York Times
• Vacuum Fluctuations
• How nothing is in fact something
• no creation ex nihilo
• Interestingly, Dr William Lane Craig gets it right and then does what you should be doing. Getting the premise right then attacking the theory. He even goes on to say Particles do not come into being out of nothing...the quantum vacuum is not what the layman thinks of when you say vacuum...it is far from nothing...particles do not come from nothing as would be the case with the origin of the universe. He goes on to say when you read in popular science magazines and newspapers that the universe is a free lunch because it came out of nothing...this is just a misuse of language, these are rhetorical flourishes. Ace McWicked 02:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You say that you changed the reference, but you first actually changed the wording. Given how you accuse me of being dishonest, why should I not accuse you of dishonesty here?

Your list of links amounts to elephant hurling; I have no intention of spending my time going through a big list of links like that when you can't even seem to understand what we are disagreeing on.

I disagree with your edit, and I will be reverting it, although see my further comments below about additional information. But to explain why by way of an analogy that I've used before (but which you ignored, from memory), suppose I'm visiting your place and you offer me a drink, so I ask if you've got anything in the fridge.

• You could reply this way:
  • You: Well, there's some meat in the fridge, and there's lots of air in the fridge, as well as some plastic and glass containers. There's also some yoghurt which I guess you could drink at a pinch, plus some oranges which you could juice.
  • Me: So what is there to drink?
  • You: Well.... nothing.
• Or you could have stuck to the point and replied:
  • Nothing.

This is what I see happening here. You explain at length what the nothingness really is, how inflation and vacuum energy and quantum fluctuations work, but when you get down to the nitty gritty, what that all amounts to is an explanation of how something can come from (essentially) nothing. So why bother with all to obfuscation when the main point was correct all along? (Except, of course, to hide the point because putting it so bluntly shows the absurdity of it.)

Of course that argument does rely on my contention that the explanation of "nothing" doesn't materially change that it is nothing, whereas you are saying that it does materially change it. I don't believe that you've addressed this particular point. Yes, you've explained at great length what "nothing" really is, but you've not demonstrated (as opposed to asserted) that all that explanation makes a material difference. And, with one exception, neither have I argued that it doesn't materially change it. That one exception is that I believe this is why Guth and others can sincerely make comments stressing the nothingness of it—because it doesn't materially change the nothingness of it. So, as I've said before, I'm not disputing the explanations of what the "nothing" is; I'm disputing that those explanations make a material difference to the nothingness of the "nothing", and in support I offer the descriptions of Guth and others.

Having said that, however, you do manage to raise a new point about Craig getting it right then attacking the theory. And this is a valid point. I've no objection (I never have) to these articles providing much more detail, such as in this case explaining what is meant by "nothing". What I object to is removing or obscuring the reference to the universe coming from nothing. Should the explanation come first or second? It depends on its relevance. As I don't consider the explanation of "nothing" to materially change the nothingness of it, I think the explanation can come second, and certainly I wouldn't want the main point lost in a lot of technical explanation. But there may be other ways of handling that.

In closing, though, I will note that in your own quote of Craig, he said that in the particular view he was describing "particles do not come from nothing as would be the case with the origin of the universe". So even Craig doesn't see this as meaning that the universe came from something.

Philip J. Rayment 06:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no intention of spending my time going through a big list of links like that when you can't even seem to understand what we are disagreeing on. That is, I have no intention of investigating what Guth is really saying, because you disagree with me. And you speak of dishonesty? Sterile 23:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem with your allegation is that I have investigated what Guth was saying; that is, I have checked out some of Ace's sources. Philip J. Rayment 03:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was concerned because I had missed a "," in that Craig sentence but didn't change it because I figured you watch the video and he makes it quite clear that meaning of nothing is far from what you suggest. And your charge of elephant hurling is laughable because a) you said you had already reviewed my evidence and b) its not elephant hurling because they all say the same thing and c) I have built over my reference list over the last few months starting small and adding as you kept disagreeing. Its not elephant hurling, its continually updating references to show you where you are wrong. Which you are. Ace McWicked 06:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

And do you think it is itellectually vapid of you to refer to a magazine cover over the man's actual work? To take a something specific and make it ambiguous? Ace McWicked 06:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

And you cant say people say it comes from nothing and quantum fluctuations within the vacuum because they are the same thing! Ace McWicked 07:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

what that all amounts to is an explanation of how something can come from (essentially) nothing As Craig says this is a rhetorical flourish. You are being exceedingly and odiously intellectually dishonest! Ace McWicked 07:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm disputing that those explanations make a material difference to the nothingness of the "nothing", and in support I offer the descriptions of Guth and others. Well they do make a material difference. Guth even suggests there is a significant prehistory to the universe and in physics and cosmology, as Craig says also, it is not nothing as you suggest, it is poetic license on the word and Guth et al are using that poetic license. To suggest other wise is not only wrong but also deeply dishonest when you know otherwise. You quote the words but none of the understanding.Ace McWicked 09:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was concerned because I had missed a "," in that Craig sentence but didn't change it because I figured you watch the video and he makes it quite clear that meaning of nothing is far from what you suggest. Well, I did watch the video, and I've gone over that part several more times, and although I agree that there is a pause there, I can't see that it changes the meaning; I can't see any other meaning that fits what he said.

And your charge of elephant hurling is laughable because... Okay. As long as it was just a recap, I retract the charge of elephant hurling. I think I meant to qualify my comment in that regard, but I forgot to, so I'm sorry about that one.

And do you think it is itellectually vapid of you to refer to a magazine cover over the man's actual work? Is it intellectually honest of you to (a) claim that you updated references when you actually changed wording, (b) ignore my question about that in favour of criticising me yet again, and (c) misrepresenting my argument as being only a quote from a magazine cover?

And you cant say people say it comes from nothing and quantum fluctuations within the vacuum because they are the same thing! I didn't claim that they were two different things.

As Craig says this is a rhetorical flourish. You are being exceedingly and odiously intellectually dishonest! No, I'm not being dishonest (as you seem to be in claiming that you updated references when you actually changed wording, ignored my question about that, and misrepresented my arguments) in not agreeing with Craig on that point.

Well they do make a material difference. As I said, you've not demonstrated (as opposed to asserted) that all that explanation makes a material difference. Here you assert it again, but don't demonstrate it.

Guth even suggests there is a significant prehistory to the universe and in physics and cosmology... Which is not the same point as claiming that the explanations make a material difference.

I have been criticised on numerous times for allegedly responding to individual points but ignoring the main thrust (yet I've not seen anyone ever point out what the main thrust was that I supposedly ignored), yet here you are skirting around the main thrust of what I was saying about it making a material difference.

Philip J. Rayment 10:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any other meaning that fits what he said. His meaning fits, throughout the entire clip, exactly what I have been saying since the very beginning. That the "universe from nothing" argument means far more than the words entail. That "nothing" in a cosmological sense means much more than the surface words would betray. He explains in detail what a universe from nothing, in the quantum physical sense, means. And this backed up by all the other sources I have given.

Okay. As long as it was just a recap, I retract the charge of elephant hurling. I think I meant to qualify my comment in that regard, but I forgot to, so I'm sorry about that one. Thanks, a recap plus a couple more.

You claim that you updated references when you actually changed wording I was updating a reference and, yes, I changed wording to reflect that. I am only guilty of being brief in my edit comment and thought it obvious what I was doing. And when I mentioned the magazine cover I was expecting you to revert my reference from his book, which is clearly a better source, over a magazine cover. Clearly it would be dishonest of you to revert to an ambiguous cover rather than the man himself. And your other quotes should have been explained to you already by the multitude of sources, including Craig, which explain what nothing means.

Here you assert it again, but don't demonstrate it. It does make a material difference because, as Craig says, the layman conception is completely different from the cosmological definition. To state the "universe comes from nothing" without any clarification as to what that refers is dishonest. There is a difference and every cite I have provided attests to that.

Yet here you are skirting around the main thrust of what I was saying about it making a material difference. Each one of my cites, including Craig, should tell you there is a material difference in that the layman concept of "nothing" is different from the quantum physical concept. I have never skirted around this and has been the point all along. Ace McWicked 10:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

And, if I could just point out that reason it makes a serious material difference is because the "physics of nothing" (as is oft referred to as) is a huge body of mathematics, cosmology, quantum mechanics and physics; the study and work on it stretches back well past Guth's theory. We are talking decades of work - to say that doesn't make a material difference is to deny the masses of effort put in by scientists for many disciplines. Ace McWicked 20:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

His meaning fits... Yet you don't explain how it supposedly fits. In that sentence it seems to me that he is drawing a contrast between the origin of particles and the origin of the universe, saying that particles, unlike the universe, don't come from nothing. You are arguing that the particles don't come from nothing, as they come from quantum fluctuations. But if this is unlike the universe, that indicates that the universe really does come from nothing.

I was updating a reference and, yes, I changed wording to reflect that. I am only guilty of being brief in my edit comment and thought it obvious what I was doing. You made an edit which changed the wording (with no change of reference), then ten minutes later made another edit in which you removed a quote, changed a reference, and reworded in a way that removed the claim of coming from nothing. Characterising this as changing a reference is not an accurate description.

It's not that I want to make a big deal of it. In fact I probably wouldn't bring it up at all, except that Given how you accuse me of being dishonest, why should I not accuse you of dishonesty here?. I believe my case for your (insignificant) dishonesty is stronger than any case you've made for me. And that's part of the point: you accuse me; but you rarely make any sort of case. You believe that my case against you doesn't hold up. But at least I've made a case for you to challenge; you've not done the same for me. You've made excuses for your apparent dishonesty, but you've not answered why you have a better case than I do.

Clearly it would be dishonest of you to revert to an ambiguous cover rather than the man himself. Only if the cover was misleading or incorrect, a point on which we've yet to agree. It's not dishonest merely on the grounds that one is a direct quote and the other isn't.

And your other quotes should have been explained to you already by the multitude of sources, including Craig, which explain what nothing means. Most fail to explain why that makes the claim of "nothing" wrong in a material way, and Craig's explanation I don't agree with.

It does make a material difference because, as Craig says, the layman conception is completely different from the cosmological definition. First, I don't believe that it is "completely" different, and second, that doesn't explain why the nothingness of "nothing" would be stressed, especially when in some cases at least the intended audience was the knowledgeable layman.

To state the "universe comes from nothing" without any clarification as to what that refers is dishonest. And I've already indicated that I have no problem with it being clarified, but you are going further and denying it.

Each one of my cites, including Craig, should tell you there is a material difference in that the layman concept of "nothing" is different from the quantum physical concept. I have never skirted around this and has been the point all along. Your sources and your arguments have been that there is a difference, and of course in your mind that was a material difference (else why bother arguing the point), but your sources and arguments were that the difference was a material one. Rather, your arguments were that there was a difference (which in your mind was a material one).

[the] reason it makes a serious material difference is because the "physics of nothing" ... is a huge body of mathematics, cosmology, quantum mechanics and physics... No, it doesn't follow that the amount of study makes a difference to whether it effectively amounts to "nothing" or not.

Philip J. Rayment 04:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

But if this is unlike the universe, that indicates that the universe really does come from nothing. Yeah, maybe you could say that, if you had heard nothing else of the science behind it, but in light of every other source I have given which say the same thing is should be obvious that he is referring to the commonly held idea of what the universe coming from nothing really means and it is mere baseless speculation to suggest he is talking about something else when his words are pretty clear.

you accuse me; but you rarely make any sort of case. There is a strong case in that you arguing against an idea without sufficient knowledge of what it is you are arguing. This is also extremely hypocritical given you comments about “anti-creationists” arguing what they don’t understand. I’ll also point out your previous “Ace’s Logic comment was not only extremely offensive but also dishonest because you missed out that I had provided a huge mass of evidence to back up my claims and you provided nothing to bolster yours (in that my references were a response to your original quotes).

Only if the cover was misleading How can you not see, from all the evidence I have provided and Dr. Craigs own video which address this very point that it is misleading. It would be dishonest of you to use a magazine cover, unknown if those are even Guth's words, over the man’s specific words from a scholarly reference.

I don't believe that it is "completely" different It’s not a matter of believe. Each source I have provided tells you what the physics of nothing is. Just because you don’t belief it doesn’t change the fact.

nothingness of "nothing" would be stressed Those quotes again? Jeez Philip, get over that – my many sources explain what it means and all you have is 5 or so quotes. Why are taking those quotes over technical papers and books which explain in detail what the nothing they are stressing means? Do you have any evidence that they mean something else? You quoted Paul Davies as stressing nothing but here he goes into detail about what he means. That’s why I call you dishonest because you apparently looked no further than what you wanted to hear. He even says – people get very upset when told this. They think they have been tricked, verbally or logically. They suspect that scientists can't explain the ultimate origin of the Universe and are resorting to obscure and dubious concepts like the origin of time merely to befuddle their detractors. I think that explains your position well.

No, it doesn't follow that the amount of study makes a difference to whether it effectively amounts to "nothing" or not. Yes it does actually, because this a huge swath of science that you are apparently handwaving away as meaning something it doesn’t. Ace McWicked 04:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

...i[t] should be obvious that he is referring to the commonly held idea of what the universe coming from nothing really means... Yes, he is referring to the commonly-held idea, and contrasting it to the origin of particles.

There is a strong case in that you arguing against an idea without sufficient knowledge of what it is you are arguing. First, it is your opinion that I have insufficient knowledge. Second, that is an argument of me being ignorant, not of being dishonest.

This is also extremely hypocritical given you comments about “anti-creationists” arguing what they don’t understand. As I'm sure I've pointed out before, when I've made that claim, it's of anti-creationists arguing against something that they've barely even bothered to study at all, and get basic points wrong, such as claiming that Noah must have had whales on the Ark, or that the Flood covered Everest. I don't make this claim of people who are ignorant of more obscure details, such as not being aware of the RATE project, for example. This situation is more like the latter, so I reject the hypocrisy charge on those grounds also.

...your previous “Ace’s Logic["] comment was not only extremely offensive but also dishonest because you missed out that I had provided a huge mass of evidence to back up my claims and you provided nothing to bolster yours (in that my references were a response to your original quotes). (Referring to this). You must be offended easily. Your "huge mass of evidence" was referred to by my comment "Ace gives his version of the facts.", which is perhaps understating it, but given the brevity and the point of the entire comment, not all that inappropriate, and certainly no worse that your frequent characterisation of me as harping on one quote when I'd provided several, not addressing points when I had, and so forth. This includes your now-repeated claim that I had not bolstered my argument, when I had in fact done so. The point of the comment was not to highlight any lack of argument on your part, but to speak as though you had settled the matter, when it was still in dispute. Your mass of references doesn't change that. Further, many of your references were not on the point in dispute.

How can you not see, from all the evidence I have provided and Dr. Craigs own video which address this very point that it is misleading. Yet I previously asked you if you were accusing the magazine of getting it wrong (in being misleading), and you ducked that question. Because my point was that if it was the magazine that was misleading, why are you directing your criticism at the creationists rather than at the magazine? So now you can answer that question that you previously ducked.

It’s not a matter of believe. How qualitatively different something is, is a matter of belief.

Those quotes again? ... Philip, get over that – my many sources explain what it means and all you have is 5 or so quotes. So you dismiss my point instead of answering it? Note that I was not simply quoting those comments, I was making a point about those quotes, and you're ducking that point.

You quoted Paul Davies as stressing nothing but here he goes into detail about what he means. Interesting article. And he repeatedly says that it all came from nothing, and his definition supports that it really is nothing.

He even says – people get very upset when told this. Told what? Told that "nothing" is not really "nothing"? NO! They get upset when told that there is no such thing as the "epoch before the big bang". He is not saying that "nothing" means a form of something, but that it means logical non-existence. I don't know how much closer to "absolute nothing" you can get than that.

Yes it does actually, because this a huge swath of science that you are apparently handwaving away as meaning something it doesn’t. No, I'm not handwaving it away. I'm pointing out that it doesn't make your case.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 05:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Your hypocrisy is staggering and your idiocy offensive. You have none of the reading, you claim to know what Dr Craig is really saying though I know for a fact that you are incorrect. How do I know? Because I have done masses of reading on this topic - you have done 0. Tell me then, what books have you read on Cosmology? I have explained to you what nothing in physics means. You disagree but refuse to educate yourself. You defend yourself from hypocrisy by claiming that it is in fact atheists who get the basics wrong while, in the same breath suggesting you have at least got a grasp on the topic when you haven't a clue. Trotting out tired phrases like ["The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada." which you attributed to Guth on this page when in actual fact he didn't say those words, the were from a magazine cover and if you have any intellectual fortitude you would have looked deeper into his work by reading his book, thereby understand what his theory and his beliefs actually were. This is why I am criticizing you and not the magazine because you have done nothing more than repeated an incorrect canard which you would have known was incorrect had you done your homework. The sheer weight of references I have provided shows you to be wrong and you have provided nothing, nada, zero to counter them. You are really quite revolting. Ace McWicked 21:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

As I have detailed here this is what is meant by a universe from nothing. You have provided nothing to rebut that but you own flawed education. If you have done none of the reading what position are you in to say I am wrong? Your own arrogance is on display for all to see. Disgusting. Ace McWicked 21:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Even more references, why you are wrong and what scientists mean by nothing...here and here. Ace McWicked 23:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is a paul davies quote - Big bang cosmologists confidently inform us that it was the big bang which created space and time, matter and energy, that the Universe sprang causelessly and without reason - from out of Absolutely Nothing. They then take a short breath and go on to tell us that this particular sort of Absolute Nothing consisted of virtual quanta fluctuating in a false vacuum. As I have continued to say since April. Ace McWicked 23:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm pointing out that it doesn't make your case. So, I have given you 20 odd references that all say the same thing and all completely and utterly agree with what I have stated but somehow they don't make my case...? Riiiiiiiight you are in fact insane it would seem. Ace McWicked 23:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Editing break in changed references

Your hypocrisy is staggering and your idiocy offensive. ... You are really quite revolting. ...you are in fact insane it would seem. Your incivility is hereby on notice. Any more of this and you will be blocked.

You have none of the reading, you claim to know what Dr Craig is really saying though I know for a fact that you are incorrect. How do I know? Because I have done masses of reading on this topic - you have done 0. That I have done no reading is nonsense. If you have to make false claims like that to make your argument, perhaps you don't have a good argument.

... which you attributed to Guth on this page when in actual fact he didn't say those words... Do you claim that I still attribute it to Guth, or do you admit, despite claims to the contrary, that I admit my mistakes? If the latter, why bring it up again now? More mud to throw?

This is why I am criticizing you and not the magazine because you have done nothing more than repeated an incorrect canard which you would have known was incorrect had you done your homework. So the magazine gets it wrong, and you criticise me for believing it? Yes, your bias is showing. Okay, I can accept that you may have reason to criticise me after first criticising the magazine, but that is not what you did. You went straight to criticising me.

The sheer weight of references I have provided shows you to be wrong and you have provided nothing, nada, zero to counter them. The first point does not follow logically, and the second is false, as I have made many arguments on the issue.

As I have detailed here this is what is meant by a universe from nothing. You have provided nothing to rebut that but you own flawed education. Translation into fair comment: You disagree with the rebuttal that I gave.

Even more references, why you are wrong and what scientists mean by nothing...here and here Trying to drown me in quantity whilst ignoring the arguments I make?

Here is a paul davies quote... Actually, it's a quote by Ralph Estling about something that Paul Davies said. And, interestingly, it quotes Paul Davies saying that the universe came from "Absolutely nothing". However, to be fair, Estling is criticising Davies for calling it "absolutely nothing" when it's allegedly no such thing, but then we don't have Davies' letter to see exactly what he did say.

So, I have given you 20 odd references that all say the same thing and all completely and utterly agree with what I have stated but somehow they don't make my case...? Riiiiiiiight As I have pointed out before, much of what you have given me is how inflation, that period just after the beginning, works, whereas the dispute was over the beginning. That is why they don't make your case.

And one more thing. I see that you have not attempted to make any rebuttal of what I said in my last post about Davies. Providing another quote from him (if it had actually been from him) does not explain the previous one. It's like I quote Fred saying that he was born in Sydney, and you say I'm wrong and produce a quote from Fred saying that he was born in Melbourne, and somehow thinking that your quote, for no better reason that it agrees with what you believed already, trumps my quote. Assuming both quotes are genuine, Fred has either lied or been otherwise incorrect in one of the claims, or there's some explanation that makes both correct (e.g. being born in the Melbourne Hospital in Sydney (I made that up; I'm sure there isn't one)). But you don't attempt to explain why my quote/argument is wrong; you just assert that because you provide a counter-quote/argument, that trumps mine.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 02:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

As I have pointed out before, much of what you have given me is how inflation, that period just after the beginning, works, whereas the dispute was over the beginning. That is why they don't make your case. Fail - you are failing to note that most of my sources describe how a universe is seen to come from nothing. More lies from Philip. Ace McWicked 03:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Warning for incivility

This is formal advice that you have been warned about incivility, as mentioned here. A one-second block will be imposed to provide a record of this warning. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 02:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Fuck off. Ace McWicked 02:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

AiG

Before I try educate you on cosmology again I am curious as to why you say creationist organizations don't receive enough, if any, funding to do proper research. Ace McWicked 01:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Because it's true. But to clarify, what I've said is that creationists (i.e. creation scientists, not "creationist organizations") get nowhere near the funding that evolutionists (in both the narrower biological evolution and the broader creation/evolution debate) get (not that creationist organisations get it either, of course). See also Biblical creation#Research. From what I can gather, most creationist research is done at the researcher's own expense and on his own time. Do you know of any funding provided to creationists for creationist research from the normal sources of scientific funding? Philip J. Rayment^discuss 01:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I do know that AiG made $19M last year. After expenses they posted a profit of $15M. That is a lot of research money they could be spending instead of building $27M Creationist theme parks. Ace McWicked 01:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so here's what's wrong with your argument.

• We are talking about grants given for scientific research. You have said nothing to refute the claim, instead trying to divert onto why a creationist ministry isn't funding research. And Bradley has already pointed this point of it being a ministry, not a research funding organisation, out to you.
• You have failed to answer the question of providing an example of funding for creationist research.
• This page lists AiG's 2008/09 figures, which are just under $20 million income (not something they "made"), with expenses of just over $19 million. That's not a "profit of $15M".
• The "theme park" is actually a museum.
• The museum was built several years ago, not last year (so is note related to the supposed $15 million).
• The museum was built in large part by funds donated specifically for that purpose. Are you suggesting that they should misappropriate them for a different purpose?
• Even that purported $15 million profit would be a drop in the bucket. For example, this site (I don't seem to be able to link to the exact page), if I understand it correctly, shows funding totalling $3.7 million just from the National Science Foundation just to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign just for projects that have "evolution" mentioned in the entry. That $3.7 million is 2% of the university's funds, and the total NSF funding for the year is over $7,000 million, which, if the 2% applies across the board, means about $145 million for evolutionary research. Given that evolution is supposed to be fundamental to all biology, I would be justified in including anything to do with biology, surely?. Not only that, but as I pointed out above, the issue is not just over biological evolution. I would be justified in including funding for research into, say, secular cosmology too. $15 million (which is not the real "profit" figure anyway) is a trifle by comparison. Of course even that $145 is small bickies when you look at the funding provided to send just one probe to Mars looking for evidence of Martian life, which was $420 million.[3]

Now, are you going to actually try and disprove my specific claim about funding?

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 11:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I am talking about the creationist theme park, not the museum. You know, the full scale Noahs Ark they are building? My only query is why hasn't someone like, say, Eric Hovind who made $90,000 last year from book sales alone put some money where there mouth is. AiG is spending $24M on building this Noahs Ark Park so it seems strange that they'd do that instead of using that money to further their study. Ace McWicked 19:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't caught up with the news of the Ark theme park, and I've often seen the museum incorrectly described as a theme park, hence my mistake. AiG are planning on spending $24 million on the Noah's Ark recreation itself, not on the whole park, which is being built by a private consortium, and AiG are asking for donations for that $24 million, so despite it twice being pointed out to you that it would be improper to divert such donations for other purposes, you still suggest that it should happen! However, although you've corrected me on the least important points of my reply, you have ignored the main points. Why is that? Because I'm actually right and you've got no answer? So why not concede? Philip J. Rayment^discuss 01:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Its not a matter of conceding who is right. I don't think there is a right answer here - I find it curious that they'll ask for donations to build a theme park (or part thereof) and spend $15M on other projects when I would think that doing the science, research and building a body of supportive evidence would be the top priority. I find it odd for someone to say they don't have the money for research when there seems to be plenty of money for other projects.

And speaking of conceding you have yet to concede that your contentions about Guth were incorrect. Ace McWicked 02:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Its not a matter of conceding who is right. I don't think there is a right answer here... I claimed that creationists get very little funding for scientific research. Are you or are you not disputing that claim?

I find it curious that they'll ask for donations to build a theme park (or part thereof) and spend $15M on other projects when I would think that doing the science, research and building a body of supportive evidence would be the top priority. Perhaps you should try telling various universities that they should ask for donations for their scientific research instead of expecting government and industry grants.

I find it odd for someone to say they don't have the money for research when there seems to be plenty of money for other projects. So you missed my point about about it being a drop in the bucket?

And speaking of conceding you have yet to concede that your contentions about Guth were incorrect. That's because they were not incorrect. I have conceded the point about the theme park, and other points where I have been shown to be wrong. I have shown you to be wrong here, but you divert instead of concede.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 02:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it is strange that with all the money AiG get and spend that they don't spend it on research. What is it you'd like me to concede? That I find it strange?

You thought Guth believed the universe came from zip, nothing, nada. I showed you he never said those words and in his book he makes it quite clear he believes the universe was made when a small patch of exotic matter underwent a quantum phase transition causing rapid inflation of space/time. I provided numerous references to this and can provide many more and you have not shown anything from Guth that goes against this. Ace McWicked 03:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You say Answers in Genesis is a ministry, but it publishes a "research" journal (the inverted commas are because whilst the Australian Research Council lists 20,712 journals, Answers in not one of them, so publishing in it is not regarded as having performed research in Australia). So why does an organisation that claims to sponsor research not do so with financial means? AiG might not be able to hand out money on the scale of the major funding bodies, but it currently contributes zero. For $5 million a year say, they could award at least 3, what would be considered, large grants employing about 20 creation researches. They obviously would not produces huge results, but you would expect them to discover something that is explainable only via the creation model. π 08:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

What is it you'd like me to concede? That it's true that creationists get next to nothing in research grants compared to evolutionists, and that AiG is not a grant body (regardless of whether you think it should become one).

You thought Guth believed the universe came from zip, nothing, nada. Yes, but I also agreed that "nothing" was not an absolute nothing. You argued that it didn't even amount to nothing despite numerous scientists claiming that it did.

You say Answers in Genesis is a ministry, but it publishes a "research" journal... True, but that doesn't change that it's a ministry. I'm not saying that funding research is outside of its scope. It could if it wanted to. Rather, that you can't expect it to, as that is not what it's there for.

...the inverted commas are because whilst the Australian Research Council lists 20,712 journals, Answers in not one of them, so publishing in it is not regarded as having performed research in Australia There could be several reasons for this. (A) Nobody has submitted the journal to the list. (B) It is American based, and may not have included any Australian research (I suspect that it has, but you've not shown that). (C) There is a bias in selection for the list. Given that this bias is rife, that's a very likely explanation, and nullifies your claim about it.

So why does an organisation that claims to sponsor research not do so with financial means? It claims to "sponsor" research? Merely publishing a journal doesn't equate to that, and although you may be right, you've not shown it. And I could just as easily ask why governments which are supposed to be impartial are partial when it comes to funding research? That's the more important question.

AiG might not be able to hand out money on the scale of the major funding bodies, but it currently contributes zero. I suspect that you don't actually know that for sure. The RATE project was funded by the Creation Research Society, the Institute for Creation Research, and AiG, although AiG's involvement was the smallest component I believe, was shortlived, and was possibly AiG Australia (now CMI) rather than AiG U.S. But then AiG U.S. was much younger and smaller then. (AiG Australia's involvement was through the involvement of Andrew Snelling, who was employed at the time by CMI. Their direct involvement ceased when Snelling went to work for ICR.) The point is that creationist groups have funded some research, and may yet do so again (and in fact may already be doing so in a very small way simply by employing scientists who do research, albeit not designated projects as such). But that doesn't mean that they have the obligation when supposedly-neutral governments should be doing so.

And that's much of the point—I too would like to seem them provide some (more) funding, but that doesn't change the point of the claim, that creationists get virtually no funding, and therefore can't be expected to have as many answers to problems as do the evolutionists. Note that the point wasn't that fund bodies should fund creationist research (although that argument could be made), merely that they don't, and AiG providing token funding is not going to change the bit I put in bold.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 09:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I also agreed that "nothing" was not an absolute nothing. You argued that it didn't even amount to nothing despite numerous scientists claiming that it did. Then why do you continue to argue against my explaination to you despite the fact I have provided over 30 references (note I have 10 or so more on my work computer which I'll provide tomorrow - including several from Paul Davies whom you continue to quote) that all agree with my position as described in my intial essay on inflation and the origin of the big bang when they all specifically state, as William Lane Craig did, that "nothing" in the cosmological/quantum sense is a rhetorical florish, which Creation.com also does here where they admit that "nothing" has been redefined to convey the sense that the universe's vacum energy is balanced by the negative gravity energy, causing a zero sum energy - which is called "nothing". Each one of my references state that we used to think was nothing is in actual fact a seething quantum foam of particles popping in and out of exsitence using quantum mechanics and borrowing energy from the greater scalar field of the very fabric of spacetime which is how the universe is currently thought to have emerged itself. Cosmologist, like Guth, also pedict a significant pre-history to the universe invoking multi-verses, branes and other dimensions, all of which is also mapped out in every one of my references that toally and utterly disagree with the position you are trying to forward. Why can't you concede you A) Hadn't read the material B) Continued to argue about something you were insufficiently educated on C) Did not fully understand what you are talking about and why can't you display the humility to admit where you are wrong? You also admit that you knew that maybe cosmologist like Guth didn't mean absolutley nothing but you didn't quite know what. If that is so why did you continually argue against my explanation to you even when admitting you didn't know yourself? Ace McWicked 09:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That it's true that creationists get next to nothing in research grants compared to evolutionists, and that AiG is not a grant body (regardless of whether you think it should become one). I don't have to concede something I never claimed. I was making a statement on the fact that AiG made a lot of money in the last year and I found it strange that they haven't put any money towards research, which I would think more important than building themeparks. Ace McWicked 10:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You would think with all the money these groups are making that they would invest in trying to demonstrate they are correct experimentally, but alas they choose the cheaper option of shifting through mainstream research and picking out the bits they think fit what they want. π 10:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Then why do you continue to argue against my explaination... Because your explanation is seeking to deny the claims made by numerous scientists, yet your explanations are mostly to do with defining what that "nothing" really is, which doesn't address whether it can be legitimately described as nothing.

Each one of my references state that we used to think was nothing is in actual fact... I don't recall any of your explanations being that "nothing" was correct but is no longer. Rather, they have been that "nothing" isn't correct.

Why can't you concede you ...? You also admit that you knew that... So you agree that I do admit some things?

...why did you continually argue against my explanation to you even when admitting you didn't know yourself? Because I didn't find your arguments (that I was incorrect) convincing?

I don't have to concede something I never claimed. I was making a statement on the fact that AiG made a lot of money in the last year and I found it strange that they haven't put any money towards research... Yet your comments were in response to my claims about lack of research funds. Are you now claiming that your comments were nothing to do with my claim that you were responding to?

...which I would think more important than building themeparks. Well, given your anti-creationist perspective, I wouldn't put much stock in what you think important in this context.

You would think with all the money these groups are making... But they aren't making much, as already explained. Their income is not what they make, as essentially all that income is balanced by expenses. Another thing that they have spent money on is paying for items to be radioactively dated, but even that can take a fair chunk of their discretionary income.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 12:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

All I have said that I would think an organization that preaches that genesis is scientifically defendable would put a lot more money to proving it.

Because your explanation is seeking to deny the claims made by numerous scientists No it isn't. My explanation is supported now by no less than 27 references which all agree with the explanation as I have stated. Please show me the "numerous scientists" that disagree.

So you agree that I do admit some things? But you have failed to admit you hypocrisy in lambasting evolutionists for making claims on topics they have sufficiently studied when you yourself were doing the exact same thing quite egregiously.

Because I didn't find your arguments (that I was incorrect) convincing But all my references, not just my explanation, say your incorrect including Christian apologist Dr. Craig.

You need to explain why my explanation is incorrect - you have failed to do so and have only made references to the "numerous scientists" who disagree with my assertions on what "nothing" means in physics and what modern cosmology says about the origin of the universe.

It is put up or shut up time. What do you think they mean when cosmologist state the universe came from nothing and is the "ultimate free lunch"? Ace McWicked 20:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

All I have said that I would think an organization that preaches that genesis is scientifically defendable would put a lot more money to proving it. And I have explained why they can't (put a lot more money to proving it).

No it isn't. That's odd, because I cited various scientists making those claims, and you were denying that the claims were correct? Are you now agreeing that they were correct?

But you have failed to admit you hypocrisy in lambasting evolutionists for making claims on topics they have sufficiently studied when you yourself were doing the exact same thing quite egregiously. Categorically false. I have explained that what I was doing and what you are doing is not the same thing. No hypocrisy involved.

But all my references, not just my explanation, say your incorrect... No they don't. They do not address my comments. That is, they were not replying to me. They say things which you claim contradict what I said, but, as I also said, I don't find your claim convincing.

You need to explain why my explanation is incorrect... I have done so.

It is put up or shut up time. I have put up already.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 01:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

But my claim, which you have argued against, is in exact line with all my references. So all my references contradict with you. Please check my references and tell me whats wrong with my explanation and why it doesn't gel with my references. If you think I am so wrong why can't to me what is wrong? i.e. What do you think they mean when cosmologist state the universe came from nothing and is the "ultimate free lunch"? Ace McWicked 01:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

If you think I am so wrong why can't to me what is wrong? i.e. What do you think they mean when cosmologist state the universe came from nothing and is the "ultimate free lunch"? I have explained both of those before, including (very briefly) in this very discussion. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 02:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Show me where you have stated what you think cosmologist mean when they state the universe came from nothing and is the "ultimate free lunch"? That was the original discussion and I have been explicit, with references so where is your counter claim. What do you think they mean? Ace McWicked 02:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

In two posts above (and in more detail elsewhere): "nothing" was not an absolute nothing. but it can be legitimately described as nothing. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 02:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Still not answering the question - what do you think cosmologists mean what they say the universe sprang from nothing. You have argued my explanation of what it mean to be incorrect, so what do you think it means? Ace McWicked 02:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have answered your questions. What I think they mean is probably something close to what you say they mean. The disagreement is on whether that amounts to "nothing" or not. They have emphasised the nothingness of it (despite it not being absolutely nothing), but you deny that it is fair to refer to it as "nothing", despite that being the terminology they use. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 11:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This discussion amounts to nothing, though not an absolute nothingness. not a member! 11:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

What I think they mean is probably something close to what you say they mean. So then,

you agree then that when cosmologists state the universe comes from nothing that "nothing" is in fact a rhetorical flourish and that nothing in physics/quantum physics actually refers to a zero-energy state from negative gravitational energy ("vacuum energy") balanced precisely by positive energy - colloquially referred to as "nothing" as it is zero sum, they cancel each other out?

When you said "the big bang is a load of malarkey" did you in fact mean that the idea that this state, as detailed above, is in fact a quantum foam of particles popping in and out of existence, breaking the zero-sum, but immediately repaying the energy back to the field but due to the nature of quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle one of the particles broke its symmetry and underwent a quantum phase transition, rapidly inflating and creating what is know known as the big bang? Is that what you meant? Ace McWicked 20:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't agree that it's a rhetorical flourish. I believe that it's true in a very real sense. You yourself refer to particles popping into existence, which is the same as "coming from nothing", despite the proposed mechanism and rationale for this to occur. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 11:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

er, no, not "nothing". Nothing would be an absense of anything. particle PAIRS come from an established framework with time, dimensionality and a higgs field. This is mathematically provable mathmatically. Hamster 15:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

All my references disagree with you including Dr. William Lane Craig who stated those exact words, ("Its a rhetorical flourish") and CMI. Also Guth gave his reasons for calling it the nothing (Though his exact words were "The ultimate free lunch") as I have cited from his book. The particles borrow energy from the vacuum to create themselves and must destroy themselves immediately to repay this energy, this is basic E=MC² stuff. You realize you are not just arguing against me but Hawking, Guth, Davies, Craig, Krauss, Adams et al?

You failed to answer this:

When you said "the big bang is a load of malarkey" did you in fact mean that the idea that this state, as detailed above, is in fact a quantum foam of particles popping in and out of existence, breaking the zero-sum, but immediately repaying the energy back to the field but due to the nature of quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle one of the particles broke its symmetry and underwent a quantum phase transition, rapidly inflating and creating what is know known as the big bang? Is that what you meant? Ace McWicked 19:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

er, no, not "nothing". Nothing would be an absense of anything. I think that's much of the point here. "Nothing" doesn't necessarily mean absolutely nothing, as I've explained to Ace before. You might say that there's "nothing" in the fridge, despite there being air, thermal energy, shelves, moisture, etc. Or "nothing" in outer space, despite there being light, dust, gravity, etc. It's not wrong to use the word "nothing" in these cases, and I've said several times that I accept that when cosmologists say that the universe came from "nothing", they don't mean absolutely nothing. Nevertheless, that doesn't negate that they not only say "nothing", but even stress the nothingness of it. If you say that particles "pop into existence", then you are saying that one moment they didn't exist, then the next moment they did. So if they came from non-existence, then they came from nothing, even if that "nothing" does have something behind it, such as a mechanism to create them, or, in your words, "an established framework with time, dimensionality and a higgs field".

All my references disagree with you... As I've said, they were not addressing me. Further, they were, for the most part at least, not addressing the actual argument I was making. William Lane Craig does address one of my points, but that's his opinion (he's not a cosmologist), and although I respect him, in this particular case I don't agree with him.

You failed to answer this:... Like you've failed to answer many questions of mine? I don't particularly recall what I had in mind, but it works either way.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 11:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

If you say that particles "pop into existence", then you are saying that one moment they didn't exist, then the next moment they did. So if they came from non-existence, then they came from nothing... No no no! Philip, come on! This is E=MC². Energy is something! You are getting confused by rhetoric. Are you saying when a nuclear bomb goes off it turns matter into nothing? No, you wouldn't say that - it turns matter into energy. This is the same process in reverse. The particles did exist, but they existed as energy and through E=MC², and the uncertainty principle, changed form into matter.

As I've said, they were not addressing me. I am addressing you, using references to support my position. Do you expect me to provide references that start with the phrase "Dear Mr. Rayment"?

in this particular case I don't agree with him. By disagreeing with him you disagree with every other reference I have provided and every other cosmologist. Some may not believe the theory but they all agree on the definition. You are effectively saying that all cosmologists are wrong and you are correct. Even CMI agrees with my position! And this latest reference I have added spells it out very clearly "The underlying theme is that cosmology give us a unique window into the "Physics of nothing" or vacuum energy." Note the quotes around "Physics of nothing" to identify the rhetoric.

Like you've failed to answer many questions of mine? Don't recall any unanswered questions but I am more than happy to answer if you ask.

When you said "the big bang is a load of malarkey" because it proposes "something from nothing" were you aware that it meant the idea that there is a quantum foam of particles popping in and out of existence, breaking the zero-sum, but immediately repaying the energy back to the field but due to the nature of quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle one of the particles broke its symmetry and underwent a quantum phase transition, rapidly inflating and creating what is know known as the big bang? Ace McWicked 20:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This is E=MC2. Energy is something! Granted. So are you claiming that the Big Bang was "merely" a conversion from energy into matter, and that all the energy and matter in the present universe already existed in the form of energy? That is, if you could have measured the energy before the Big Bang, it would equal the energy and matter existing today? Because that's not the impression I was getting. And if so (to raise a new question), where did this energy come from? Further, this equation and principle is so well known, I don't believe that it explains why there has been so much stress on the Big Bang coming from "nothing". Why didn't they just say that the Big Bang was a conversion of energy into matter, if this is all that was meant?

I am addressing you, using references to support my position. Do you expect me to provide references that start with the phrase "Dear Mr. Rayment"? No, but neither do I expect you to claim that they disagreed with me, at least when they were not directly addressing the point I was arguing, which is why the Big Bang was referred to as something coming from nothing.

By disagreeing with him you disagree with every other reference I have provided and every other cosmologist. I was disagreeing with Craig on his claim that "nothing" was a "rhetorical flourish", and I don't recall any others making that particular claim.

Even CMI agrees with my position! Perhaps you should provide me with the reference (again?). They argue that Guth's views (at least) are that it came from nothing. Sure, they also argue that it couldn't come from nothing, and I think even that some other cosmologists disagree that it comes from nothing, but they are separate arguments.

When you said "the big bang is a load of malarkey" because it proposes "something from nothing" were you aware that it meant the idea that there is a quantum foam of particles popping in and out of existence,... I think I was aware that the "nothing" may not mean "absolutely nothing", but I may not have recalled/been-aware-of the details of that.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 13:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe the idea is that the energy of all the stuff in the universe is exactly compensated by the negative gravitational potential energy. So you don't need a lot of mass/energy to create a universe, but you somehow need the laws of physics. --Awc 16:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

. So are you claiming that the Big Bang was "merely" a conversion from energy into matter, and that all the energy and matter in the present universe already existed in the form of energy?...Why didn't they just say that the Big Bang was a conversion of energy into matter, if this is all that was meant? My E=MC² comment was to illustrate how particles come in and out of existence because you were getting confused by the language. The Big Bang is different in that the uncertainty principle and the nature of quantum mechanics comes into play. It's not a simple matter/energy conversion because the fluctuation went through a quantum phase transition which rapidly inflated the universe (this is explained further in my comments below). I have described this to you ad infinitum and all my references say the same. Note also that this process is very well understood and happens all the time (on smaller scales...such as inside your computer!). Guth and others, including Hawking, theorize that universes are being created all around us, a model called "Chaotic Inflation" which was first proposed by Andre Linde.

I don't believe that it explains why there has been so much stress on the Big Bang coming from "nothing". because as Craig says and Guth explained with his "free lunch" example it is a rhetorical flourish and, as AWC says above I believe the idea is that the energy of all the stuff in the universe is exactly compensated by the negative gravitational potential energy. the two competing forces cancel each other out, zero-point energy, effectively, in a rhetorical sense,...nothing! This zero point energy is a quantum foam and particles pop in and out of it but must immediately return to energy again so as not to break the symmetry and the conservation of energy law. But because of the inherent instability of quantum mechanics the symmetry is broken, causing a quantum phase transition, a universe from nothing!

I was disagreeing with Craig on his claim that "nothing" was a "rhetorical flourish", and I don't recall any others making that particular claim. Guth explained why he calls it nothing, Craig explained it also, Lawrence Krauss explains in his lecture that "nothing isn't nothing anymore" my most recent source (a very technical paper) says "The underlying theme is that cosmology give us a unique window into the "Physics of nothing" or vacuum energy." and all my other sources explain the process as I have.

Perhaps you should provide me with the reference (again?). CMI quotes Guth here "All matter plus all gravity in the observable universe equals zero. So the universe could come from nothing because it is, fundamentally, nothing." then go on to say themselves that "Big Bang cosmologists...they’re now redefining words like nothing, universe, and nowhere". In other words, accepting what I have stated all along - nothing is a zero-energy state and, in physics, has been redefined and is rhetorical.

I think I was aware that the "nothing" may not mean "absolutely nothing", but I may not have recalled/been-aware-of the details of that. Now that you are fully aware do you now understand why, at the very start of this discussion in March I called it is slightly misleading to simply state the universe comes from nothing without the understanding of what this actually meant? Ace McWicked 20:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

My E=MC² comment was to illustrate how particles come in and out of existence because you were getting confused by the language. Okay, so you wouldn't say that conversion of energy to matter per E=MC² is "popping into existence", but we can say that for the universe because that's something different. So different that we can call it "nothing".

Guth and others, including Hawking, theorize that universes are being created all around us, a model called... A model? Since when does unscientific (unobservable, unreproducible, unmeasurable) speculation count as a scientific model? When it's done by evolutionists, presumably.

...because as Craig says and Guth explained with his "free lunch" example it is a rhetorical flourish... I've overlooked the significance you're placing on Guth's "free lunch" comment, because I've understood it differently to the way you appear to be reading it. Rather than it being his version of Craig's "rhetorical flourish", it sounds much more like the "something from nothing" claim. A "free lunch" is where you (supposedly) get something for (from) nothing. In other words, Guth's "free lunch" is simply alternative wording for "the universe came from nothing". And you've not provided evidence that anybody else describes it the way Craig does.

I'm not sure that Guth's quote from CMI really supports your contention that it wasn't from "nothing" (albeit not denying that "nothing" means something other than "absolutely nothing"). Almost the reverse; he is again stressing the nothingness of it, but justifying it by claiming that the current universe is also "nothing". "Fundamentally nothing", actually. But again, not absolutely nothing, as this "nothing" is still something (which is legitimately described as "nothing").

do you now understand why, at the very start of this discussion in March I called it is slightly misleading to simply state the universe comes from nothing without the understanding of what this actually meant? I understand, but that doesn't mean that I agree. As I pointed out at the time, I had already acknowledged that some cosmologists said that the universe came from something.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 13:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll try again soon......

Ace McWicked 22:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Phil, I really don't know what you are misunderstanding. I can't tell if you are being deliberately obtuse, lying or, frankly, are just stupid too understand. I have provided you with 27 references, each of them back up my contentions in full. Several of these references plainly state the "nothing" is rhetorical - from Craig's comment, to CMI. I quoted from Guth's book, his own words, why he calls it "a free lunch" - he explains the rhetorical nature. Lawrence Krauss does the same in his lecture while the technical paper puts quotes over the words to signify the play on the words. All you have done is trot several quotes and what you think they mean based on your, admitted, lack of research on the topic. ALL my references disagree so I'll have to assume you are being deliberately ignorant, pig-headed and arrogant in your contentions. There is no other option (I have discounted stupidity for the time being) and you haven't provided a single, coherent, well sourced, explanation of why you think I am incorrect. I am not trying to be uncivil or offensive, I am truly bewildered by your repeated failure to understand yet you'll continue to argue despite admitting you don't think you need to do the research or read the materials. Ace McWicked 00:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

CMI does not say that it's rhetorical, and I don't consider what they do say about redefinitions to be equivalent.

I quoted from Guth's book, his own words, why he calls it "a free lunch" - he explains the rhetorical nature. The reason he gives for calling it a "free lunch" is that "the universe evolves from essentially nothing at all". That's not him saying that it's a rhetorical flourish. That's him saying that it amounts to (essentially) nothing.

ALL my references disagree [with you]... You cited three examples: Craig, CMI, and Guth. I agree with you on Craig. I've explained why the other two don't agree with you (on it being a "rhetorical flourish"). So it's not "all" at all.

...I have discounted stupidity for the time being... Thanks. I appreciate it.

...you haven't provided a single, coherent, well sourced, explanation of why you think I am incorrect. I believe that I have provided coherent argument, although it's been more an argument from reason than from reference.

...you'll continue to argue despite admitting you don't think you need to do the research or read the materials. Yet I have read numerous links you have provided. How does that gel with your claim that I admit that I don't need to read or research?

I've tried explaining this before, but you don't seem to get it. I agree that "nothing" doesn't mean absolutely nothing; there is something proposed there. However, I claim, on the basis of various authorities that I quoted (including, for example, the quote from Guth in this post, a quote that you provided), that the "something" can legitimately be called "nothing". The debate, to a fair extent, is over the legitimacy of calling that "something", "nothing". Craig dismisses the "nothing" as almost misleading, but Guth and the others I quoted don't, and I don't recall anybody else you quoted saying that either. They do talk a lot about the "something", but don't explain why it's wrong to call it "nothing". So, to put it another way, it's like the optimist and the pessimist: one concentrates on how full the glass is, while the other concentrates on how empty it is. Merely different emphases of the same facts. I am concentrating on the "nothing" aspect, while you are concentrating on the "something" aspect. I acknowledge the "something" aspect, but you deny the "nothing" aspect.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 11:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

In physics when a cosmologists says "nothing" it means vacuum energy. A zero-point energy state, a symmetry which can be broken through quantum mechanics causing a quantum phase transition - I have 34 references to prove this is the case and many of them put nothing or physics of nothing inside "quotes" to signify the turn of phrase. It was misleading of you to simply state "nothing" and that's why the big bang was "a load of malarkey" when you didn't understand this concept and it is dishonest of you to argue against my explanations and references while using your own reason which was based on an admitted ignorance of the science involved. That's all there is to say. Ace McWicked 20:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Elsewhere (on a different page

You really should learn more about the topic you so readily criticise. Pot/Kettle...Ace McWicked 20:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

...arguments that make perfect sense... Erm, ah, OK. Sterile 21:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Pot/Kettle I knew you'd feel you had to comment. But yet again, you're comparing chalk and cheese. My comment was in the context of an earlier comment in the same discussion: This is a pretty basic point of biblical creation, yet you seem ignorant of it. Which leads me to conclude that you have very little knowledge of the idea you fulminate against. (emphasis added). As before, I'm saying that someone should have at least a basic understanding before criticising a topic. I never said that they should be an expert in every area, which is how you use it against me.

Erm, ah, OK. Well, they do! Do seriously question that things would change as a result of both the Fall and the Flood?

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 10:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit break. I have a lot to get through (I used a word processor to count 2019 words in it)and I can't properly refute this before I go to bed. I've just been summarising your points and then I'll get to refuting them tomorrow.Several ingredients 10:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No hurry. I've got plenty of other discussions that I'm yet to reply to! Philip J. Rayment^discuss 12:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

But yet again, you're comparing chalk and cheese. Well, it isn't as when we started our discussion you didn't even have a basic understanding but I have come to expect this deflection of valid criticism from you. Carry on. Ace McWicked 19:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I guess there's an aspect of this that I haven't emphasised. I have only ever used the criticism in connection with the creation viewpoint as a whole. I've not criticised anyone for not understanding the basics of baraminology, nor of genetic information, nor of the RATE project. You are accusing me of only having a basic understanding of a particular theory, not of uniformitarianism/evolution as a whole. You will notice in my quote of myself above I didn't say a pretty basic point of biblical creation's philosophy of science, but a pretty basic point of biblical creation. That is, it's basic to the overall worldview, not to one particular aspect of it. Your criticism of my knowledge of the Big Bang is about my knowledge of a particular aspect of the secular worldview, and that is how my criticism differs from yours, and hence how I'm not being hypocritical. Now it might seem I'm splitting hairs, but that aspect—that I'm talking about things that are basic to the worldview—has always been a fundamental distinction in my mind. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 20:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You are setting yourself up now, so broadly, as to always be able to defend a charge of hypocrisy. No matter what you misunderstand you can always say "Yeah, but that is one particular aspect, I understand the larger uniformitarianism/evolution as a whole". Sneaky. Ace McWicked 20:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

And, if I were to accept the above then you are arguing dishonestly and with out assuming good faith via arguing vehemently on material you haven't read against a person who has. Ace McWicked 20:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You are setting yourself up now, so broadly... As I've already said, this is something I always had in mind, not something I'm doing "now".

...you can always say "Yeah, but that is one particular aspect, I understand the larger uniformitarianism/evolution as a whole" Yes, I can, because I do. The sorts of ignorance I'm talking about would be paralleled by a creationist who doesn't realise that evolution has moved on from Larmarkism, or that the Big Bang has replaced the Steady State hypothesis, or who thinks that evolutionists' only source of information is Origin of the Species.

...you are arguing ... vehemently on material you haven't read against a person who has. So what am I supposed to do? Not argue because you've read something I haven't? Aren't I allowed to critique and even disagree with your argument? I read many of your links, but was not convinced that they refuted the point I was arguing.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 07:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

So what am I supposed to do? Not argue because you've read something I haven't? Well, yes - because what I had read was his direct work written by his very own hand. I don't argue about what specific beliefs Russell Humphreys has in cosmology because I am fairly unfamiliar with his work. It would be extremely rude, ignorant, arrogant and pig headed of me to argue with someone about his (Humphreys) beliefs, someone who has read and studied his specific work, if I had very little understanding of it. Which is exactly what you were doing. I had studied Guths work for years, read many of his papers and his original work where he laid out his beliefs specifically and followed those who built on his work. It is an extremely dishonest, and arrogant, argument to insist I am wrong when admitting you didn't actually know what he really meant and then still arguing I was incorrect even when I quoted from his book. Have you read anything by Guth?

Aren't I allowed to critique and even disagree with your argument? yes, but you have provided nothing in the way of a rebuttal, no links (aside from four quotes back in April) no cogent reasoning aside from "I don't agree".

I read many of your links, but was not convinced that they refuted the point I was arguing. my comments on your talkpage relate to this. Ace McWicked 08:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't argue about what specific beliefs Russell Humphreys has in cosmology because I am fairly unfamiliar with his work. It would be extremely rude, ignorant, arrogant and pig headed of me to argue with someone about his (Humphreys) beliefs, ... Perhaps you should pop over to talk:Human genome and tell that to Martin Arrowsmith, who hasn't read Sanford but has been arguing with me (who has read him) based on what I've quoted of him. And I haven't criticised him for that. I don't agree with your opinion on it being rude, etc.

Have you read anything by Guth? You linked to some of his stuff, didn't you? And I read some of your links, so the answer is probably yes.

yes, but you have provided nothing in the way of a rebuttal Nonsense. I have provided extensive rebuttal. That you don't agree with it doesn't mean that I haven't provided it, nor does it mean that it wasn't cogent. To claim that all I've said is that "I don't agree" is simply wrong.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 12:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

tell that to Martin Arrowsmith Why? I haven't been following the conversation and my quibble is with you. So you think its fine to argue about things you haven't fully studied, understood or about things you haven't read? Remember this? That is a very poor standard of debate and I find it quite insulting that you'll mount such disagreements while admitting you don't think you need to do the research.

You linked to some of his stuff, didn't you? And I read some of your links, so the answer is probably yes. Yes, you have now because I provided it so you'd see beyond the single quote you attribured to Guth. I meant before you started debating me on it - had you read anything by Guth?

I have provided extensive rebuttal. Where? How? I see no links, no references, you have only provided your disagreement backed up by nothing. Ace McWicked 16:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

re: These edits

This claim is very speculative. What isn't big enough and how was this conclusion come too? The universe before just inflation was a Planck length in size. What grounds are there for this being "not big enough"?
Secondly inflation explain this very well in fact. If you think otherwise then put your case. Ace McWicked 01:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"Speculative"? Admittedly no details were given in the article, but what makes you think it was "speculative"?

If you think otherwise then put your case. Errr, I did, and you took it out!

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 01:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain what the case is? How was the conclusion reached? Ace McWicked 01:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

And what is "being mixed"? It is space expanding at a rapid rate - a single item. There is nothing to mix! Ace McWicked 02:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The case for saying that inflation doesn't solve the problem is that there is not enough time for the "mixing", i.e. for heat to flow from hotter areas to colder areas, before the universe inflates. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 02:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

But it is the very fabric of space that is being stretched, there is no mixing. Its all one "patch" being stretched, there is nothing to mix! Ace McWicked 02:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The fabric of space is being stretched, yes, and that in itself doesn't solve the homogeneity problem, which is that there hasn't been enough time for the temperature to even out. Inflation is supposed to solve this by proposing that it was homogeneous before it expanded, which requires that it became "mixed" (i.e. evened out) before inflation kicked in. The case being made is that there isn't enough time before inflation for this to happen. Given that, I don't understand your comment about there being nothing to mix. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 05:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Imagine a rubber band being kept at 5 degrees. When you stretch it all areas of it remain at the same consistent temperature. Infation stretched the universe, a patch of energy. There was no need for "mixing". It doesn't make any sense Philip, there is nothing to mix. In fact, there wasn't any "heat" in the first place because there wasn't even time, meaning no entropy leading to uniformity. When infation kicked in the universe was a planck length in size and dominated by quantum physics. I want to know what reasoning is used to determine why it isn't enough time. Ace McWicked 05:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Stretching a rubber band produces heat, so it doesn't stay at the same temperature, but that's beside the point. Your point is that a stretched rubber band doesn't have some hot parts and some cold parts, because the temperature is evenly spread. True, but it was evenly spread to start with. The question is why it was evenly spread to start with.

The problem that inflation supposedly solves is how uneven temperatures became even, given that there's not enough time for this to occur (as the article explains). Inflation supposedly explains this by saying that it evened out before it expanded. The claim here is that even though the universe was much smaller then (and it therefore wouldn't take long for the heat to even out), given how soon after the beginning inflation occurred, there was still not enough time for it even though it wouldn't have taken long.

I don't have the figures, just the basic, brief, argument.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 11:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If this is just the basic brief argument then we should probably drop it until you can get some finer points to me because at the moment the argument doesn't make sense and I don't believe you understand enough to be able to create a full rebuttal. We are talking a quantum field here - before "time" so the idea of heat transfer then becomes irrelevant. You need to provide some reasoning before this discussion can progress. Ace McWicked 19:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem that inflation supposedly solves is how uneven temperatures became even this is an incorrect statement - inflation shows how temperature A is the same as B when separated by vast amounts of space. It say nothing about uneven temperatures becoming even because there were no uneven temperatures. I think you need to do some more reading Philip before this can continue. Ace McWicked 00:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Some of this flurry of changes was an improvement, some was not.

• "The universe is remarkably homogeneous. The density of matter and the way it clumps is very nearly the same everywhere we look, at least at scales above 100 Mpc." was deleted with the comment "the universe is /not/ particularly homogenous, and the CMBR is what is in focus with the horizon problem." Perhaps the point should be stressed that we are talking about scales of 100 Mpc and above, but at those scales, many properties of the universe are demonstrably and quantifiably homogeneous. The CMB temperature is the easiest to get a handle on, but you could also take the density, the proportions of baryonic matter, dark matter, and dark energy, the baryon to photon ratio, the anti-matter to matter ratio, the clumpiness of the matter distribution, etc., etc. Even if we did not know anything about the CMB, the homogeneity of these other quantities would still present a horizon problem. This sentence provides relevant and well-substantiated information, and it should be put back.
• "Without some other mechanism, the uniformity of the temperature can only be considered a "God given" initial condition of the Big Bang." was removed. Maybe not a big deal, but I still think it's worth pointing out that one "solution" to the problem is simply to declare a uniform temperature as an initial boundary condition. It's not a solution that physicists find particularly satisfying, but it is essentially the creationist solution to the problem, so how bad can it be? I guess it's the point being made in the following sentence, but I don't understand why Philip is eliminating all references to the creationist POV. Isn't that what aSK is supposed to be about?
• Finally, this was added:
  One of the proposed solutions is the "inflation" model. This proposes that the universe was thoroughly mixed in the first microseconds of the big bang expansion, it expanded in size by 10⁵⁰ times in a tiny fraction of a second. This is supposed to explain the homogeneity of the observable universe. However, the universe was not small (before inflation) for long enough for it to be evenly mixed. —

For the last statement, there is a reference to Alex Williams and John Hartnett, Dismantling the Big Bang, Master Book, 2005, ISBN 978-0-89051-437-5, p. 125. Starting there, what are the professional qualifications of the authors? A book is not generally peer reviewed and cannot automatically be considered a reliable source. If we want to report this as a fact, can't we find a source in a peer-reviewed work, ideally a secondary source?

As to the content—and the dispute between Philip and Ace—I think the picture is wrong. As I understand it, the universe before inflation may well have been grossly inhomogeneous. It certainly had quantum fluctuations in temperature. But tiny enough regions, for the usual reasons of radiative energy transfer, would have had a fairly uniform temperature. Inflation picked one of these regions and blew it up so much that we can no longer see the neighboring regions with a different temperature. The article needs to be edited to reflect this picture. It is also a bit misleading to refer to inflation as "one of the proposed solutions". It is almost universally accepted as the likely solution, and no solution is in sight that even comes close to matching it.

--Awc 13:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I am leaning towards disagreeing with you on the idea that quantum fluctuations could cause "heat" in the sense as we know it. I am not really %100 sure though and the fact that a fluctuation causing a subsequent virtual particle does create mass and, as such all the properties of mass, combined with the resulting annihilation means you could be right. Ace McWicked 19:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

In response to Ace's points:

• To put the sizes in perspective (because I had to look them up anyway), 100 Mpc=325,000,000 light years, the nearest major galaxy is 2,000,000 light years away, and the Virgo supercluster (a cluster of galaxy clusters) is (according to Answers.com) 110,000,000 light years across. The point is that matter is not evenly spread except on the very largest scale. Stars are grouped into galaxies, galaxies into clusters, and clusters into superclusters. Saying that the universe is homogeneous when looked at on scales of 100 Mpc is a bit like saying that Asia is flat when looked at from the moon, from which perspective you can't see the Himalayas. It may be true, but obscures important information. The second reason is that the horizon problem is concerned with the homogeneity of the CMBR, not of matter. Okay, perhaps a similar problem would exist for other factors as you say, but those other things are not what the horizon problem is about, which is the time available for its heat to even out.

At least we agree on the facts: the density of the universe is fairly homogeneous at large scales, and very lumpy at smaller scales. The small scales are interesting, but don't have a horizon problem, so are not "important " here. An article on Asia would likely mention the Himalayas, but an article on the Earth as a planet would be justified in calling it a sphere.

It is true that all discussions of the horizon problem talk about CMB, and many of them talk only about CMB. But some sites do a more thorough job, e.g.

* McGraw-Hill Science & Technology Dictionary start their definition this way: "The problem of explaining the observed uniformity of the universe, and in particular of the cosmic background radiation, ..."

* Another site writes this: "While the CMB is the most direct version of the horizon problem, it also arises in studies of cosmic nucleosynthesis, which took place when the Universe was about one second old. The abundances of elements formed at this stage are very sensitive to the precise density of material present. Any significant variations, and element production will take place differently in each region, and when all the regions in our observable Universe are added together the net result would be different from the successful predictions of nucleosynthesis in a homogeneous Universe. The number of separate causally disconnected regions is even larger at nucleosynthesis than at decoupling, so in some ways this version of the problem is even more severe."

Maybe I was just irritated by your reason, "the universe is /not/ particularly homogenous, and the CMBR is what is in focus with the horizon problem." If you had said, "Although the universe is homogeneous in many ways at the large scales relevant to the horizon problem, most sources concentrate for good reasons on the CMB. To avoid confusing our readers while still presenting sufficient information, we should leave out references to other aspects of the horizon problem." then I probably would not have objected. --Awc 09:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• The (biblical) creationist solution is to reject the Big Bang, not to add God to it. I guess you could argue that a God-given initial condition of some sort is inherent in whatever model creationists propose, but the way it was worded was misleading at best.

I was not entirely happy with the previous wording, either. But whether the universe is 13 billion years old or 6,000 years old, and whether the universe is static or expanding polynomially with time, there is no way to homogenize an uneven temperature by radiation. What is the creationist solution to this problem? --Awc 09:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• See Alex Williams and John Hartnett. Books often are peer-reviewed (but I agree not always). Describing inflation as "almost universally accepted" appears to be overstating it, and I doubt that you are sufficiently familiar with alternatives (e.g. Carmelli's proposal, or Hartnett's extension of it) to claim that "no solution is in sight that even comes close to matching it".

Here is the complete quote from Williams and Hartnett:

The Horizon Problem

The problem posed by the homogeneity of the CMBR is sometimes formulated as the "horizon problem." In order for the radiation coming to us from the east, say, to be uniformly the same temperature as that coming to us from the west (and likewise for a north/south comparison) some mixing must have taken place at earlier times to homogenize it all. The radiation coming to us from the east has about 15 billion years to get here (or whatever age is assigned to it) and the radiation coming from the west has likewise about 15 billion years to get here, therefore the mixing must have taken place more than 30 billion years ago. Of course, the universe is only about 15 billion years old. Thus, the horizon problem.

Inflation purports to save this problem by saying that the mixing took place when the universe was very small and light could have traveled to all parts of it in the time available, but inflation does not solve the problem because the inflation rate allegedly was much faster than the currently measured speed of light, so the early universe did not stay small enough for light to travel all around it. Only if the speed of light is accelerated to a greater extent than the inflationary expansion rate can it be overcome. This would cause massive distortions to other aspects of physical reality and simply makes the inflation scenario even less believable than it is already. There are other problems also with inflation — two fundamental ones are (a) how to get it started, and (b) how to stop it (see Robert Newton, "Light-travel Time: A Problem for the 'Big Bang,'" Creation 25(4):48–49 (2003).

Occam's razor would favor a simpler explanation. One possible simpler explanation is smoothing out of the average temperature of space by thermalization of starlight, as suggested by Eddington in 1926, and as currently favored by Tom Van Flandern, Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets: Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated (Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books, 1993), p. 400, 460, 465.

—

They don't go into specifics (numbers, etc.), so it's hard to make much of it for the article, but at the very least the article should not say that inflation has solved the problem.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 01:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

What Hartnett/Williams is saying doesn't make any sense. There was no "mixing" as there was nothing to mix! What expanded was a patch of energy dominated by quantum mechanics and the size of a Planck length. As if a balloon was being expanded or some other stretchy rubber. There were no heat variances. I would like to know what they are basing this view on because it is completely different to the mainstream. Ace McWicked 01:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You are looking at it all wrong Philip, you can't view this through the lens of ordinary physics because the size of the universe and its creation in the moment before inflation was dominated by quantum physics so things like entropy and time are irrelevant. In fact some aspects of M-Theory state the during the Planck phase of the universe time was dimension in the same sense as the other 3 dimensions meaning the universe's history and future (in the probabilistic quantum sense) were existing simultaneously! Ace McWicked 01:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

But again, there is no reasoning behind the claim "there was not enough time", that's just a throwaway comment with no backing aside from pure assertion. Inflation occurred during a period when the universe was already homogeneous, it didn't cause the universe to be homogeneous it only explains how such a large universe can be homogeneous. Again, you are looking at this the wrong way. Ace McWicked 01:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

We can safely ignore the views of the botanist on cosmology, but at least Hartnett possesses professional qualifications. The question becomes, why has he not published his calculations in a peer reviewed journal? The source remains a popular level, unrefereed book, and not really a reliable source for this type of information, especially since the statement there is sketchy (and appears to me to be wrong).That said, I am willing to accept a carefully worded statement about inflation theory. It certainly doesn't have the degree of supporting evidence and acceptance that other ideas, like general relativity or the Big Bang itself, have. --Awc 09:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Edits - redux

Removed this because inflation says little to nothing about what happened before inflation. Inflation is the mechanism of action, quantum physics ruled previous to inflation and was responsible for "mixing" (whatever that means).
This claim is blatant assertion and no reason has been given for why there "isn't enough time". Ace McWicked 11:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

A final explanatory email

(Sent via Yahoo! 18/02/2011)

I'll explain to you why I used the words I did.
On aSK you stated, to me, you didn't feel you needed to do the reading in order to mount an argument yet, on CP, you say -
you are trying to argue against ideas (creationism, the accuracy of the Bible, etc.) that you know next to nothing about, and the right and proper thing is to actually do some study and learn about the subject before you go around criticising it. Okay? I trust that you won't return here with more arguments until you have actually learnt a reasonable amount about the subject.

This makes you an extreme hypocrite.
On the same CP page (http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Dinosaur#Adaptation_and_evolution) you state to a user -
Hey! Terrific argument! You don't know how big the ark was, you haven't got any figures on how many animals would need to have been on it, yet you can conclude that it's not big enough! I must stand in awe of your immense intelligence! (Sorry for the sarcasm, but you asked for it.)

To which I reply:
Hey! Terrific argument! You don't know how big the initial universe was, you haven't got any figures on why there isn't enough time for inflation, you know nothing of the three previous epochs before inflation (or, indeed that there even were these epochs, yet you can conclude that it's not enough time! I must stand in awe of your immense intelligence! (Sorry for the sarcasm, but you asked for it.)

You see? This is why you and creationists are incapable of honesty, truth and intellectualism. This is why people are rude to you and why people get revolted when arguing with you. Because you, sir, are a liar and a hypocrite.

Response from Philip - 18/02/2011

As I have explained before, my comments about knowing something about the subject were just that: knowing something (i.e. knowing at least the basics) about the general subject of creationism. Examples I have given include (from memory) knowing that the flood lasted for a year, not 40 days, that creationists don't claim that it covered Everest, that it only carried land animals (not sea creatures), and so forth. The most basic and easily-ascertainable information. You are using it against me because not because I'm unfamiliar with the basics, but because I'm not a complete expert on a particular hypothesis of the overall issue.

As I said, I have explained this before, and therefore shown why I'm not a hypocrite on this. Yet you repeat the accusation as though I have not previously answered it. Why?

As for your "terrific argument" example, in this case I was not arguing that there was not enough time. I was citing an argument from a cosmologist that there was not enough time. I admitted that I didn't have the figures, and therefore I did not try and defend the argument itself. (As opposed to trying to clarify just what the argument was, which you seemed terribly confused about.)

So your charge that I am a liar and hypocrite (and the unwarranted extrapolation of that to creationists generally) fails.

Ace's Retort - 18/02/2011

Philip,

Nonetheless, your bluster aside, you are still arguing about things of which you admitted you had not studied nor had not read up on. Some of it was basic knowledge but that is irrelevant. Even if it wasn't basic knowledge you were still debating something you hadn't sufficiently studied - basic or otherwise.

And the point is you felt you could argue against someone who had a much larger knowledge base than you, continually arguing that they were wrong (like you disagreeing with Craig even though he is head and shoulders more knowledgeable than you) without having done any reading in the first place and admitting, after the fact, that you had read my sources. Well, why were you debating in the first place when you obviously hadn't read those sources or any of the cited works? This is intellectual dishonesty at work.

Hence this comment - "you are trying to argue against ideas (creationism, the accuracy of the Bible, etc.) that you know next to nothing about, and the right and proper thing is to actually do some study and learn about the subject before you go around criticising it. Okay? I trust that you won't return here with more arguments until you have actually learnt a reasonable amount about the subject." makes you a hypocrite despite your twisting logic leaps.

You were actively defending the claim of not enough time without knowing what happened before inflation, what epochs preceded it and what happened during those epochs, without providing (or knowing) any figures and claiming everyone else was wrong despite knowing nothing about it yourself. You even went as far as to claim the "sum over histories" equation "sounds like science fiction" when I bet you don't even know what it is, how it is calculated, what it refers to, how it can be demonstrated, which branch of physics/cosmology it belongs, who the proponents are, what it means about our universe and what physical tests can we do to prove it. That said I actually don't think the "sum over histories" equation is altogether the right answer but I least I know what I am dismissing and I know how it can provide the initial conditions required by inflation theory. I also know how the planck epoch works and how that can provide the initial conditions plus how the two following epochs worked. Can you?
Seriously, are you able - with looking at wikipedia, even able to name which epochs followed the planck?
Did you know there even was such a thing as the Planck Epoch?
If answering "no" to these what makes you think you are in any position to understand why the "not enough time" argument is faulty or to argue its validity?

As an aside, if the "sum over histories" is incorrect by creationist standards, what is the creationists explanation for the interference pattern as shown by the double-slit experiment?

Whether or not you think you are a hypocrite is irrelevant - I think I was justified to call you what I did but I know I was being rude. So you need to know that people, outside your creationist world, view your tactics as intellectually dishonest and hypocritical.

Why don't you take some responsibility for yourself? Be a man and employ some, dare is say, machismo.