DESTROY NOAH'S ARK

[max-greece]

Ahh, your lord and savior Dawkins, I should have known.
You could have summarized the video but Mr. Krauss summarizes his theory nicely starting at 40:46.

Why is there something rather than nothing? The answer is, there had to be. If you have nothing in quantum mechanics, you'll always get something.

Very profound and scientific.

My lord and saviour? You really haven't understood anything about atheism.

As it happens the video is primarily Krauss - Dawkins just does the intro.

I have watched that video 8 times to the point where I feel I have at least a superficial understanding of what he is saying.

Seems to hold water. Is it right? No idea - its reasonable (in physics terms if not to a layman's logic). There are many reasonable explanations for things that turn out to be wrong but right now its just about our best guess as to where the universe came from and why.

In that the explanation doesn't rely on the pre-existence of something claimed to be even more complex that the universe itself, which, apparently, has to have existed for ever and be infinite it appears to be a better explanation than God. YMMV.

[Chas]

Ahh, your lord and savior Dawkins, I should have known.

Dawkins? What are you on about? He is not a cosmologist, he is merely introducing one.

You could have summarized the video but Mr. Krauss summarizes his theory nicely starting at 40:46.

Why is there something rather than nothing? The answer is, there had to be. If you have nothing in quantum mechanics, you'll always get something.

Very profound and scientific.

Glad you see that it is both profound and scientific. You're making progress.

[Esquilax]

Makes perfect sense, assuming the only evidence is the circle, how can you evaluate evidence for or against, when it doesn't exist? So if I state aliens created the circle what would you base your rebuttal on?

Oh, gee, how about the fact that there's no evidence that aliens did it if there's only the circle as evidence?

Jesus, you godwads truly are in love with the idea that an ignorant answer is better than an honest lack of one, aren't you?

[Huggy Bear]

I did not offer a theory, I pointed to evidence.

Then I'll pose the same question to you that I did to Max-greece

offer the best scientific evidence of how something can be created out of pure nothingness.

[Esquilax]

offer the best scientific evidence of how something can be created out of pure nothingness.

"And if you can't, then god!"

Sorry Huggy, but poking holes in the knowledge base of science isn't positive evidence for your claim. Someone else not having an answer doesn't make you right. That's kindergartener logic.

[Jackalope]

Really.

A sea grass that lives in relatively warm, shallow salt water (Mediterranean Sea from 1-35 meters depth) could survive after being submerged in deeper, colder brackish water as well as silt / sedimentation?

You know this, how?

You do realize that the habitat ranges of sea life tends to be a lot narrower than "must live in water", do you not?

Of coarse I know that. You however do not know the conditions any more than I do, I said it was possible and apparently it survived.

The question was not related to what you know, GC, but HOW you know it. You can only think you "know" this by presupposing the very event that is under contention (a global flood).

It isn't necessary for me to know the exact conditions. Do you understand what it is about green aquatic plants that makes them green, what biological mechanism they operate on, and what said plants require in order to survive? Chlorophyll, photosynthesis, and sunlight. Do you understand why photosynthetic aquatic plants who depend on the sunlight found in relatively shallow water cannot survive in deeper water? For the very same reason that a person cannot survive on a teaspoon of food and water a day for very long.

You are correct in that we could not know the exact conditions, but it is not necessary to do so to make some deductions and inductions about the hypothetical event. I know you're aware from other conversations that I am a very experienced scuba diver. I've dove to 40 meters in waters at many latitudes from near-arctic to near the equator in all conditions. The conditions may vary, but there is one factor that is universal: sunlight diminishes rapidly with depth even in the clearest water, and in water with suspended particulate matter (like flood runoff water), it can get very dark very fast - dark enough that even as shallow as 20 meters, I've needed a very large, bright flashlight to see during a summer algae bloom.

There is a very good reason that P. oceania is not found deeper than 35 meters. As you descend down the water column, the distinct differences in sealife found at varying depths is easily observable - and what starts disappearing as you pass through about 30-40 meters is photosynthetic plants.

Even if I make the generous concession that the water conditions were otherwise suitable for aquatic plant survival, the sunlight issue is inescapable.

Genesis claims that the waters were deep enough to cover the highest mountains of the world. How deep was that? How long would aquatic plans have to survive without access to sunlight?

P.S. You know what else kills aquatic plants? Sedimentation. What occurs during flooding? Sedimentation.

Derp.

[Minimalist]

It was all God's work, what makes you think it wasn't?

GC

You can't provide any evidence that your fucking god exists, G-C. This is a major flaw in your argument.

[Huggy Bear]

Makes perfect sense, assuming the only evidence is the circle, how can you evaluate evidence for or against, when it doesn't exist? So if I state aliens created the circle what would you base your rebuttal on?

Oh, gee, how about the fact that there's no evidence that aliens did it if there's only the circle as evidence?

Jesus, you godwads truly are in love with the idea that an ignorant answer is better than an honest lack of one, aren't you?

Is it really that difficult? There is no evidence for or against. Yes there is no evidence that aliens created the circle, but there is also no evidence that aliens didn't create the circle. Therefore you can't be absolutely certain that aliens weren't involved.

[My imaginary friend is GOD]

OMG MIN...

How did you even know about that stupid thing that guy just said?

[max-greece]

Asking me for a summary of the video isn't totally fair as I am not a physicist. My understanding is that nothing(ness) in quantum terms is unstable and constantly produces particles and anti-particles.

This was explained by DeGrasse Tyson as follows:

When matter and anti-matter meet they destroy each other completely leaving nothing. This is the reverse of that process.

As long as the net energy of the universe created is zero there is nothing to stop it being created.

It might be - and this is my own speculation that nothing(ness) is impossible on its own and that there is some kind of fundamental balance between nothingness and somethingness that is continuous. This may be a law of physics that we do not know that would apply either outside the universe or between universes if there is more than one.

The first 2 lines above are the theory - the last bit is entirely my own speculation.