So I’ve been thinking about Ray Comfort’s video for the last two days, which I also posted about. It is sad to think Ray has learned seemingly nothing in the 11 years since I was an avid disciple of his. He says that since evolutionists claim that nothing exploded and created everything it’s more rational to believe that the god of the Bible did it in 6 literal days.

ecc839a6f6c8b88f726b23452aea9ff65f6028105e51fa29368cf08a9a4073cc

So I’ve been wondering about it. I’ve been slowly becoming aware that scientists don’t use language in the same way we do. They’re not trying to deceive, but like philosophers they can sometimes use language in a way that can seem counter-intuitive to us. So surely scientists mean something different when they speak of nothing. And sure enough they do. “Nothing” in scientific terms has weight and heat and space etc. I just came across this statement on a YouTube video that explained it quite well for me. It’s by Lawrence Krauss:

“One of the greatest discoveries and surprises of the last generation, if not the last century, is that the dominant energy of the universe resides in empty space, in nothing, you take a bit of space get rid of the all the particles, all the radiation and everything and we find that space weighs something and we don’t understand why. The fact that we can observe that at the present time is remarkable. …essentially you can get a universe from nothing, without any supernatural shenanigans. That basically by quantum mechanics and the laws of physics as we understand it in principle, an entire universe with a hundred billion galaxies, each containing a hundred billion stars can come from nothing, ’cause it’s total energy could be zero, and therefore you don’t need to literally violate any laws of physics to create a universe. Now we don’t know that for certain, but even that possibility is amazing.”

Comfort quotes Krauss in his video, but only selectively. Shame. Because he makes Krauss out to say something far less than he is actually saying. Everyone should see what he says in context. Still disagree if you like, but he isn’t simplistically saying what Comfort’s seems to think or wish he was saying.

And just for good measure here’s another great science educator on the topic Sean Carroll.

Advertisements