It is possible to create a greater model of the world that completely includes and accepts science and all its claims and *at the same time* allows a conscious creator of the world with a masterplan behind the scenes.

Of course, one would not be able to support the latter with observations/proof, hence the latter is usually dismissed by rationalists.

There are limits to the mathematical observations that science can supply. Math proves that the more exact you know the position (or momentum) of a quantum object, the less precise you can know the momentum (or position) of that object. That is really a mathematical problem, it is not a problem of improvable measuring apparatus. Interpretations vary. One would be that reality plain simply is not defined beyond that uncertainty barrier.

The same problem applies when science tries to go back to the beginning of the world that supposedly took place in form of the Big Bang: At some point, math proves itself to be unable to look further.

It is totally natural to come up with theories of what might be beyond (at the very beginning / at the very smallest scale), only it seems that we might not ever be able to know.

The singularity which apparently existed before the Big Bang unfolded the universe seems to include logic itself.

Whatever people might believe the singularity to be (just the source of the everything-system or even God, a conscious creator), we live in a system that sticks to science.

*If* the universe is God's creation, then we could say: Since everything is magic, nothing is magic.

Stick to science and reason.

Just admit Makeroni, for once, no matter how many books you read - that there are things - WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT or WE JUST DON'T HAVE ENOUGH FACTS TO MAKE THE THEORETICAL OATMEAL STICK! - Some DESIGNS just can't be unraveled in a few hundred human lifetimes, be it peeking through keyholes or watching ameobas washing their behinds under microscopes! The "peace" method I presume you are offering will not last with just numbers or even a few nifty theories or inventions - especially when you have creatures like lust, jealousy, pride, anger, etc. boiling throughout the world. Science and reason ALONE cannot heal the many twisted desires of people. There will be no peace as long as we scientifically deny that we are our worst enemy.

To:Makeroni and Shawn Duncan

Makeroni you repost the same old issues under new topics and never answer the rebuttals. These are not new issues they are rehashed issues. I would think that you would answer the rebuttals before you post the same arguments. In addition, after you make apologist type statements throughout you wind up saying that you agree with science?

You said, "It is possible to create a greater model of the world that completely includes and accepts science and all its claims and *at the same time* allows a conscious creator of the world with a masterplan behind the scenes."

You are saying that the notion that a creator created everything (without giving any explanation) is not in conflict with science. Since there is no scientific theory that is compatible with a creator that created everything it has to be in conflict with science, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. You do not give any proof of a creator or where the creator came from. This is of no use in the understanding of anything that is scientific - it is based on belief - not science.

Shawn Duncan said, "Just admit Makeroni, for once, no matter how many books you read - that there are things - WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT or WE JUST DON'T HAVE ENOUGH FACTS TO MAKE THE THEORETICAL OATMEAL STICK!"

We know plenty about most of the things that Makeroni brought up, and you don't have to read that many books to make the kinds of statements that Makeroni is making. He has not proven that there is a creator outside the Universe with these typical apologists' arguments that are outmoded.

Shawn Duncan said, "Some DESIGNS just can't be unraveled in a few hundred human lifetimes, be it peeking through keyholes or watching ameobas washing their behinds under microscopes!"

The microscopic life form is - AMOEBAS - Macaroni's design hypothesis would not require hundreds of human lifetimes to disprove since the fossil record has already done that and if evolution had been false DNA would have falsified it, but instead it has confirmed it. Anyone can say that creation is compatible with science but they can't prove it.

Shawn Duncan said, "The "peace" method I presume you are offering will not last with just numbers or even a few nifty theories or inventions - especially when you have creatures like lust, jealousy, pride, anger, etc. boiling throughout the world." Sorry Shawn, but your answers indicate that the point of Makeroni's post is something that you don't seem to be able to grasp.

Makeroni said, "The same problem applies when science tries to go back to the beginning of the world that supposedly took place in form of the Big Bang: At some point, math proves itself to be unable to look further."

We can look back in time. When we look out at the universe, we are looking back in time, because light had to leave distant objects a long time ago, to reach us at the present time. This means that the events we observe lie on what is called our past light cone. The point of the cone is at our position, at the present time. The light cone spreads out to greater distances, and its area increases. However, if there is sufficient matter on our past light cone, it will bend the rays of light towards each other. This will mean that, as we go back into the past, the area of our past light cone will reach a maximum, and then start to decrease. It is this focussing of our past light cone, by the gravitational effect of the matter in the universe, that is the signal that the universe is within its horizon, like the time reverse of a black hole. If we can determine that there is enough matter in the universe, to focus our past light cone, we can then apply the singularity theorems to show that time had a beginning.

Makeroni said, "Whatever people might believe the singularity to be (just the source of the everything-system or even God, a conscious creator), we live in a system that sticks to science."

Scientists don't believe the singularity is god and apologists deny the Big Bang theory, even though the cosmic microwave background is indubitable proof of the Big Bang. So, putting god in where you think there are gaps is called "faith" not science. The expansion of the universe is like the time reverse of the collapse of a star, observational evidence indicates the universe contains sufficient matter that it is like the time reverse of a black hole, and so contains a singularity.

Makeroni said, "*If* the universe is God's creation, then we could say: Since everything is magic, nothing is magic. Stick to science and reason."

NASA not only undertakes voyages in space, but also in time. Thanks to the finite speed of light, NASA has even succeeded in making several voyages to the beginning of time. The Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) was launched in 1989 by a Delta rocket. It would return observations for four years. April 3, 1992, it was announced that COBE had observed "the oldest and largest structures ever seen in the early universe … the primordial seeds of modern-day structures such as galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and so on … huge ripples in the fabric of space-time left over from the beginning."

And one more reason to "stick to science and reason" nobody is going to cure a pandemic with magic.

Shawn Duncan said, "Science and reason ALONE cannot heal the many twisted desires of people. There will be no peace as long as we scientifically deny that we are our worst enemy.

Religion has for sure never cured or solved anything. Christian apologist's explanations consistent with reason are simply not possible (there is nothing to be gained.) Some people do not think that there is any justification for a belief in the supernatural. If the information creationists are offering is real and genuine, why take stands against science and rational thought. We have a much better possibility of solving the world's problems without beliefs that are based on ignorance - that is our worst enemy. There will be no peace until people give up backward superstitious beliefs that divide people and pit them against one another, which only benefits Rulers.

Makeroni said, "It is possible to create a greater model of the world that completely includes and accepts science and all its claims and *at the same time* allows a conscious creator of the world with a masterplan behind the scenes."

If you accept what science claims there would be no need for a creator. Almost every scientist rejects the creation science model: Creationism or Intelligent Design. Some people think it should be taught as a theory, although there is absolutely no evidence to support it except for the Bible. God created all of the species during a short period of time, perhaps about 10,000 BCE. God created all of the species at the same time (within a few days of each other.) If you accept the scientific extremely long period of time required for evolution - there is still no evidence of anything being designed. You would still have to prove that a creator designed everything.

Scientists believe that primitive one-celled life form came into existence by a series of natural processes, billions of years ago. Billions of years later, this primitive life form had evolved into more complex species (trilobites) Dinosaurs evolved and became extinct - new species that evolved from the dinosaurs and other species that were on earth with the dinosaurs continued to evolve. Homo Sapiens, Neanderthals, and some of the higher apes appeared much more recently, and shared a common ancestor. Neanderthals became extinct. Homo Sapiens, Neanderthals, and some of the higher apes appeared much more recently, and shared a common ancestor. Neanderthals became extinct. All during this extinction of old species and arrival of new species, individual animals died. A very small fraction of those with hard shells or a skeleton became converted to fossils. Most scientists do not believe that any worldwide flood ever occurred. There are serious questions about where all the water came from and went. There are hundreds of stories of origin taught by various religions around the world.

Scientists have concluded that the theory of evolution is true. They have traveled to the Grand Canyon in Arizona, and to thousands of other locations around the world, and studied the fossil record. They have found fossils of thousands of species of plants and animals which evolutionary scientists believe did not exist on the earth simultaneously. The older species died out before the first member of the more recent species evolved. They can pick any pair of species (dinosaurs and humans) they found that the fossils of the two species have never been found together. Also, archaeologists have never found remains of ancient villages and towns in and below the oldest layers of rock. The most scientists working in the field of biology and geology have concluded that Creationism or Intelligent Design is incompatible with the fossil record.

Makeroni said, "Of course, one would not be able to support the latter with observations/proof, hence the latter is usually dismissed by rationalists."

Although you argue your case scientifically, it is fundamentally a religious endeavor, a matter of faith in the Bible. Evolution is not compatible with Christianity, death only came into the world because of Adam's sin. There was no death before then, and you can't have evolution without death. The creation story in Genesis is scientifically impossible. Genesis 1-2 The creation of the world in six days, Genesis 2:7 The creation of Adam from the dust then Eve from his side. Genesis 6-8 the worldwide flood of Noah. Genesis 9:29 Man living as long as 900 hundred years. There's far more evidence for evolution than there is for the theological hurdles required to be a Christian. Creationism offers an explanation only if you have previously accepted the belief in a Christian god.

Makeroni said, "There are limits to the mathematical observations that science can supply. Math proves that the more exact you know the position (or momentum) of a quantum object, the less precise you can know the momentum (or position) of that object. That is really a mathematical problem, it is not a problem of improvable measuring apparatus. Interpretations vary. One would be that reality plain simply is not defined beyond that uncertainty barrier."

The Werner Heisenberg uncertainty principle - is the theory that the observer can never know the exact position and momentum of a particle? Nanotechnology is finding the answer to this aspect of the uncertainty principle. Scientists have used new optical technologies to observe interactions in nanoscale systems that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle usually would prohibit. Researchers conducted experiments with high-powered lasers and quantum dots, artificial atoms that could be the building blocks of nanoscale devices for quantum communication and computing, to learn more about physics at the nanoscale. One common phenomenon in physics is the Fano effect, which occurs when a discrete quantum state (an atom or a molecule) interacts with a continuum state of the vacuum or the host material surrounding it. The Fano effect changes the way an atom or molecule absorbs light or radiation. In experiments on nanoscale systems, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle sometimes blocks scientists from observing the Fano effect. The interaction of the nonoscale system and its continuum state surroundings can't be detected. But in a new high-resolution laser spectroscopy experiment led by M. Kroner and K. Karrai of the Center of NanoScience at the Ludwig-Maximilians University in Munich, Germany, scientists utilized a new method. They measured photons scattered from a single quantum dot while increasing the laser intensity to saturate the dot's optical absorption. This allowed them to observe very weak interactions, signaled by the appearance of the Fano effect, for the first time. A theory for the new nonlinear method was developed. The theory suggests that the nonlinear Fano effect and the method associated with it can be potentially applied to a variety of physical systems to reveal weak interactions, Scientists also can revisit older experiments on atoms by using modern tools such as highly coherent light sources that are strong enough to reveal such nonlinear Fano-effects.

Makeroni said, "The same problem applies when science tries to go back to the beginning of the world that supposedly took place in form of the Big Bang: At some point, math proves itself to be unable to look further."

The universe has not existed forever, but had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. We are not yet certain whether the universe will have an end. The possible re-collapse of the universe, even if the universe does come to an end, it won't be for at least twenty billion years. The time scale of the universe is very long compared to that for human life. Not surprising that until recently, the universe was thought to be essentially static, and unchanging in time.

The theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law, states that disorder always increases with time. It indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature. In an infinite and everlasting universe, every line of sight would end on the surface of a star. This would mean that the night sky would have been as bright as the surface of the Sun. The only way of avoiding this problem would be if the stars did not shine before a certain time. The universe is not static, but expanding. Galaxies are moving steadily apart from each other. This means that they were closer together in the past. One can plot the separation of two galaxies, as a function of time. If there were no acceleration due to gravity, the graph would be a straight line. It would go down to zero separation, about twenty billion years ago. One would expect gravity, to cause the galaxies to accelerate towards each other. This will mean that the graph of the separation of two galaxies will bend downwards, below the straight line. So the time of zero separation, would have been less than twenty billion years ago.

At the time of the Big Bang all the matter in the universe would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.

Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. So, it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.