Something Can't Come from Nothing

This is from http://www.creationtips.com/evoluwrong.html:

"There is of course no scientific law or demonstrable process that would let something evolve from nothing. If there was nothing in the universe to begin with, obviously nothing could happen to cause anything to appear.

"Atheistic evolutionists often try to duck this problem — which is impossible for them to answer satisfactorily — by saying that evolution is not concerned with the origin of life, only how life progressed after it appeared."

If you can't get something from nothing, then why do you think you can go on to argue the next step?

Comments for Something Can't Come from Nothing

Click here to add your own comments

Jun 08, 2015

A universe from nothing
by: Anonymous

When scientists say that the universe can simply come out of nothing without any divine intervention, they think of the universe in terms of its energy content only. In the book ‘The Grand Design’, page 281, scientist Stephen Hawking has written that bodies like stars or black holes cannot just appear out of nothing, but a whole universe can. What Hawking meant to say here was this: As the total energy of a whole universe is zero, so it can come out of nothing. But stars or black holes will fail to do so, because their total energy is not zero. But universe means not only its energy, universe means its space-time as well. Do these scientists think that the total space-time of the universe is zero, and therefore, the entire space-time of the universe can also appear out of nothing?

Jan 01, 2012

Impossible for "nothing" to have ever existed
by: Mike

Just heard something by Slavoj Zizek:

He mentioned something to the effect that a state of "zero" or nothingness is an incredible difficult (almost impossible) position to exist.

So its not likely there ever was a "nothing" - the odds against this being true are so much more astronomically higher than merely there being something.

He is pointing that its must more "realistic" that "something" would exist, something, anything, than for there to have ever been a nothing point.

I just butchered this up - but basically it would take a truly supreme being to create a "nothing" , a zero-point... but essentially for just something to exist it wouldn't. So its not a question to ask, how would this "something" come into existence, but truly "how would nothingness" ever come into existence... or something like that :)

The question is strange because we want to think of things as a vacuum and begin from there...so its not common sense to think that the odds of something/anything being in existence is way more likely than nothing.

Jul 27, 2011

Finite can NOT be Eternal
by: Anonymous

To Add to your sound scientific principal argument (or assertion)

I've heard Evolutionist then say;
"everything has always existed then"

the Problem w/ them saying that is,
then they run into the problem of Finite matter can NOT be eternal....

It's just like if you live forever, as you go into the future you always have another day & eternity never ends

same thing applies if ya try to take finite matter & all that is & go back in time forever(eternally)
You CAN NOT get to the 1st Day to complete it so you can start the second day & eventually get to today :-/

If you say everything has always been
your stating a scientific impossibility

Now then they say, so who created God & if that principal applies to us, & all that is, then who created God & when did God start...
well, Number one, God is NOT finite
& the bible even covers that, God is Spirit
He is so Big, he is not even confined to Time
He has proven he's outside the time realm & he knew to point out he is different & that is also
Divine proof He knew something Mere man could not have known as scripture was divinely inspired & covers the would be problems that come from finite universe scientific laws & principles

Note; God is NOT some finite material
that we can put under a Microscope & Analyze

May 17, 2011

Human Evolution Fossils
by: Paul Pavao

One final thing:

A list of the various fossils that are candidates for human ancestry can be found by following the "evolution of man" button on the NavBar to the left.

May 17, 2011

Missing Link
by: Paul Pavao

There's not really one missing link in the history of human evolution. As it turns out, there are many of them!

We've found lots, though. Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis, Australopithecus Afarensis, Ardipithecus Ramidus, etc. The evolutionary history of mankind is becoming more and more complete all the time.

I went to the Smithsonian and they had a whole wall of fossil skulls from primates, possible human ancestors, dating back several million years.

The "missing link" is a misnomer that hasn't had any application for a century and certainly should have been put to rest when Donald Johanson found Lucy, the first Australopithecus Afarensis skeleton, and a whole batch of others the next year.

May 17, 2011

Trilobites and Evolution
by: Paul Pavao

I guess I should have picked a better example than trilobites. My statement is accurate, but trilobites were ubiquitous for a couple hundred million years. They are indeed easy to find, even at the surface, and one of my best friends found one without looking for it. Just happened across it at a lake.

There are many reasons that very ancient layers of the earth can be exposed. Sediment does not always accumulate. Sometimes it is washed away as climates change or cataclysmic events occur. So very ancient layers can make it to the surface, along with the fossils contained in them. That is very likely to happen with trilobites because there were so many of them.

Nonetheless, fossils are so consistent in the earth that oil companies can use them to find oil. The fossils they drill up tell them what epoch they're drilling into, and they know that oil comes primarily from the carboniferous era. Very consistent, no matter where on earth you are.

As for the question about fish, it's just a mistake to assume that because one species evolved from another that the previous species had to go extinct. Evolutionary theory does not predict that.

It is common for only part of the earth's population of a species to evolve away from its parent species. Usually this happens because some event or travel isolated a small amount of the population, which speeds up their evolution.

That's over smaller time frames, though. Over larger time frames, such as the 250 million years since the Permian extinction, it's almost impossible to find fish that are of the same species as fossil fish from 250 million years ago. They're of the same family or order, but not of the same species.

As for chimpanzees, we believe that humans and chimps had a common ancestor, not that humans evolved from chimps.

As the fossil record becomes clearer and more and more transitional forms from the last 7 million years are found, we are coming closer and closer to knowing what that common ancestor looked like, and perhaps even finding the species.

May 11, 2011

Staying with this argument
by: Jason Chapel

How are trilobies "near the bottom" when they are findable in most places all over the earth by hunting for them. My family found dozens in Utah when I was fifteen. (first flaw)
Yet the biggest flaw that I find is that we inevitably evolved from fish...yet fish still exist? as do frogs? as do hundreds of thousands of others species of animals, and then...only ONE species of human. If apes were our closest relative, and they still exist today...where is the link between us an apes? Evolutionists argue and try to FIGHT and FIND the missing link yet...so far...after thousands of years of back dating...you cannot find it?
In my opinion, out of all the faiths in the world, this is by far the most difficult to trust...especially when there is no trace to a beginning of life on this planet

Apr 12, 2010

Moving on to Next Argument
by: Paul (webmaster)

Hmm. I don't like being forced to rate this page. I'll have to change that.

I've left your comment up without answering for a while. I did that on purpose just to let it stand on its own.

You asked: >>If you can't get something from nothing, then why do you think you can go on to argue the next step?<<

Well, we don't. The question is: Why is the earth layered in such a way that trilobites are near the bottom, then fish above, then amphibians above that, then reptiles above that, and only then are there any mammals? Why is this consistent all over the world? Why are almost all marsupials in Australia?

Questions like that are answered with "life evolved."

Once that answer arose, we have now spent 150 years testing it and looking for mechanisms. The answer holds up very, very well.

The question, how did something come from nothing, is unrelated. Completely different question.

Click here to add your own comments

Join in and write your own page! It's easy to do. How? Simply click here to return to Creation Argument Invitation.

Home

Evolution

Creation

Faith

Miscellaneous

Science & Honesty

The Author

"I have been a biologist for a long time, and I hope I never stop getting shivers in my spine when I think about the beauty of how we come to know things in biology.

Biologists make predictions, then they go out into the field or the lab to see if their predictions hold up. When hundreds of predictions of this sort are fulfilled, a theory reaches the point where it becomes certain, at least on a broad level. And that is where we are with evolution."

– Falk, Darrel. Professor of Biology. Point Loma Nazarene University. California.