Prepare for the hilarity by watching the video, if you dare. I suggest a strong drink or some hard drugs beforehand, if you want any amusement value.
Yes, it’s the standard “atheists are forced to believe that nothing becomes everything” fallacy, which I’ve mentioned before when it came from Ray Comfort.
This, however, comes from the equally quarter-witted “Doctor” Dino, Kent Hovind. Of course, since he’s in jail until 2015, he’s only making personal appearances in his cell, but the tradition is carried on by Eric Hovind, his son.
Nothing + time = everything is an equation that’s an equation in the kind of way that “I (heart) NY” is mathematically correct. There’s a good chance that it might not be true. It is of course entirely possible that, at the big bang, everything was present – all the matter and energy that would one day form the universe – but in one single point. Mayhaps from a previous universe collapsed upon itself.
There would have been no time in the relativistic sense that big bang theories use, since there would have been no space. So in the event that something COULD come from nothing, the whole “you’d have to wait longer than the lifespan of the universe” caveat doesn’t mean the same thing.
Of course, something can come from nothing. Often times, when the creationists claim that something can NEVER come from nothing, they do so under a shower of photons.
Prepare for a trip down science lane with the sultan of skeptics, boys and girls. This trip is courtesy of “The Cartoon Guide to Physics,” which is part of Larry Gonick’s wonderful, spellbinding, fascinating, informative series of “The Cartoon Guide to…” books. Who said comic books didn’t ever teach you anything?
When two positive charges repel, how does the electric charge get across the intervening space?
Through the exchange of protons – protons have energy, but no mass, and travel at the speed of light.
But wait! These photons are not real! They violate the conservation of energy, and exist for only a infinitesimally short time – the time it takes for light to travel between two repelling subatomic particles.
BUT HOW? It’s the LAW of conservation of energy, right? Oh, but here is where quantum uncertainty kicks your brain in the basal ganglia. (It’s like the crotch of the brain, right?)
The uncertainty principle can be put thusly: You cannot make an exact determination of energy and time simultaneously. So like everything else involving anything quantum, it’s “fuzzy.”
Think of the energy in the universe as a bank account with a very sharp, but friendly, banker watching over the energy books. You can withdraw more money (energy) than you’ve got available, but only if you do so for an extremely brief period of time. After that, the energy is reabsorbed by the extremely effective law of conservation repo man. If it’s a lot of energy, the banker notices quickly, and the energy vanishes even faster. So low energy photons can travel farther (longer) than higher energy photons. This is why the repulsive effects of like charges diminish at a distance – high energy photons repel them at first, then as they move farther apart, only lower energy photons can reach them.
So in essence, charge is the movement through the virtual photon cloud that surrounds charged particles. We know that these “virtual” photons can become real, because you’re looking at them right now. They’re shooting out of your monitor. Into your eyes.
And when Dr. Dino Jr. explains how “nothing + time = everything,” you’ll notice the CGI that looks kind of like some cutscene from a late 90s video game . The photons describing this (despite the dated quality of the animations, these are not actually traveling back through time to reach you) are not created by nothing + time.
What happens is that the energy, multiplied by the time of the violation, cannot be more than a certain constant “h.” Or, you could say ΔΕ*Δt≤h. So as long as they shoot out nice and low energy, they can reach your face. If they’re angry, high-energy particles, they stay close. This is why your plasma screen monitor does not burn your face off, and why you have to stand so far away from a towering bonfire of Richard Dawkins book every Wednesday night.
We should not expect a guy like Hovind to be good at science, or math, or taxes, or issues of law.
And as I’ve said before, this statement of “anyone who believes in evolution must therefore belief this,” is a serious bit of whiskey tango foxtrot in the context of a “debate.”
So a creationist gets to pick his opponents viewpoint.
Then he does not prove that viewpoint to be untrue.
This is compelling how?
Our next one promises to be as fun as a white water trip through the grand canyon. On Noah’s Arc. With unicorns fucking behind you and your finger on the trigger of the species doomstick. Unfortunately, it’s not done yet, so once Mr. Dino tells me just how awesome that must be, I’ll get back to you.
Of course, what the creepy youth-pastor slash mad christian scientist Hovind is actually doing here is subverting children’s natural awe at the scale, grandeur, and dinosaurs-versus-aliens epicitude that science can give them. He sees the fascination that gripping science can evoke in so many of us, and he wants that shit for his church.
For guys like Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis, this would be where the pseudoscience showed up – just grab some scientific facts, and shove ’em into this bible cutout, kids!
Of course, even they don’t buy Hovind. When creationists attack you for “discredited or false arguments,” well, you should really stop arguing.
So feel free to click PZ’s link. I hope he wins an ipod touch. And I hope I win that atheists’ bible. I think it’s an add on to the new D&D rules.