Proving Evolution/Big Bang

[Kuroko]

--_--

Your missing the point Rooney.

The question is not where energy or matter came from, the question you should be asking is what process is capable of CAUSING the transition from nothing to some thing, or even from mass to energy (we know the later, however the question still stands on where the energy came from to be converted to matter).

0 is the value of +1 (matter, possitive, good) added to the value of -1 (Anti-matter, Negative, bad) the values of each is inconsequential, they don't matter, people need to stop bringing up the values of each, the representation of these numbers with thier corresponding atributes is what matters.

[Rooney/ManUtd]

I made this thread mainly to see what the guys that don't believe in creationism believe how the earth formed. Personally I have chosen to believe in creationism mainly because of the flaws in the big bang theory on how the earth was formed. Especially how something can come from nothing.

[Jack]

Personally I have chosen to believe in creationism mainly because of the flaws in the big bang theory on how the earth was formed.

And you believe those flaws to be...?

Especially how something can come from nothing.

Like god?

[Zinkovich]

And thus by stating your stance my point was made. You are not being fair in your division of probabilities, nor your exclusive criticism of the big bang when you think that creationism is dominant and ignore that it has the same logical issue.

Tell me, why are you not neutral on this issue, considering the limited data concerning the nature of "things" before the universe, and our ignorance concerning the laws that might have preceded this unknown condition, or indeed, our ignorance of whether there are laws without the universe at all?

[zynner]

Maybe the Big Bang Theory is wrong.

It is based on a particular interpretation of what redshift is.

If the commonly accepted theory of redshift is wrong, then the Big Bang Theory could be wrong.

Maybe the universe itself really is infinite through space and time. Maybe it's stable, not expanding.

Halton Arp is a proponent of this idea.

Check out: http://www.haltonarp.com/?Page=Forum&topic_group_id=2

~ zynner

[Rooney/ManUtd]

I know how you think the argument can go both ways because if matter and energy can come from nothing then how can god come from nothing. The only problem here is that God is a spiritual being and therefore has no beginning or end (quoted from the bible). Also, when you ask a question like, How can God come from nothing, then enter into the spirituality realm which science cannot even begin to explain. Science only deals with material things. So scientifically, you cannot prove God. It is a faith thing.

[Zinkovich]

Then creationism is not a logical position, but one based on cultural/spiritual preference, by your admission?

How do you know the energy was not mysteriously "supernatural" in the same sense? Or that the energy before it formed into matter controlled by a set congruous laws was outside of time, and thus existed in a seperate plane?

I could posit that there was a special energy that was before the formation of the universe that has this same "supernatural" feature, could I not? How is such speculation less plausible then your idea of God? Why are you accepting your position as the dominant probability?

[Rooney/ManUtd]

I think we have reached a point where we can no longer logically debate, because i will simply say how God is a spiritual being and has no beginning or end, and you will say what you just posted or something very similar. I'm done with this thread for now

[Osborn F Enready]

LOL....

This is why subjective and objective realities need logic and reason to settle disputes....

[Kuroko]

Rooney, I will give you another example of the universe.. or begining of it, if it will please you.

This is a personal theory, which borders on the general theory of rellativity, it also explains the big bang theory, it also explains string theory (well, majority of them, this is akin to the super-string theory using the five main dimensions explained in specialised relativity).

There was no "big bang" as stated in my theory under this Topic Gravity pulls space into itself, it also affects time but in a different way to the general theory of relativity.

You see, the universe is expanding, red-shift shows different ages of stars and trajectory shows that they came from a central point, this is where big bang came from, however, under my theory, matter can exist in equal space time under the influence of gravity, for instance, the higher the stress gravity imposes on space, the more space is pulled into the gravity source, but also the source of gravity is affected, it shrinks, however, under my theory, it only shrinks in respective to the space not affected by itself, so to say, a black hole appears small, really small, however in relation to the space-time is has affected it is still the same size as it was/should be, simply because as you continue towards a gravity source your molecules will only occupy the equivilant "scrunched" space time, the closer you get to the black hole, the bigger it will become, and the smaller you will get, however that is only by appearance on the outside, you still occupy the same amount of space as you did before simply there is more space in a smaller vacinity.

In this scenario, the gravity only works on the space-time is affects, which is consistant with other scenario's including both string and general relativity.

Now, here's the kicker, the big bang never happened, the universe always existed in a sense, however as space time expanded, so did the space between the matter, you see, as time began, the universe was expanding because space and time are connected, so as one furthers, so does the other.

We don't notice it but we are getting "bigger" we DO know that objects can be compacted, black holes for instance.

In other words, red-shift does happen, it is simply the sheet of space time expanding with time.

[Zeppelin DC]

To be blunt, the Big Bang has the same logical/philosophical issues as the idea of God creating the universe. Both assume something coming out of the blue or always existing before inhibiting change, one stating it is an all powerful intelligent entity and the other stating it is a impersonal mass of condensed energy. I find neither theories satisfactory at this point in time, to tell you the truth.

The is absolutely ridiculous.
God is assumed to be eternal, there is no logical problem with something that has never had a begining that will never end.

We know the universe had some begining because the ammount of useable energy in the universe in going down. It is impossible for the earth to go on forever and to say the nothing exploded to form something is a huge illogical, unscientific assumption.

Evolution contains many internal errors as well which I would gladly exploit if it would not get us off track.

[Zinkovich]

Uh-huh. Did you read any of my following posts?

Calling it ridiculous and then defining the entity as beyond the problem does not deal witht he issue of something coming from nothing. In fact, I could do the same thing with the energy that existed before the cosmos, saying before it became the universe it merely always was.

My point is that we can define something outside of the logical issue all we want to avoid it, but that doesn't change the fact that someone can do it with just about any other "pre cosmos" theory on the origin. The logical gap caused by this issue of the creation of matter does not point specifically towards God.

I said there were lgocial problems with both. If you percieve me as a "seperate side" and thus a supporter of the theory opposite of yours, that is your problem and not mine.

Edit: Explain to me how assuming there is a realm outside of the universe is scientific. I can assure you it is not, and that God is not supported by science with the current data we possess.

[Kuroko]

The unverse in the energetic sense is indeed dwindling.
And it will continue to dwindle as matter is turned into forms of energy and expelled.

Light, radiation, heat, all these things are expelled, this is evidence of the universe as we know it having a beggining, note: as we know it.

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: Kuroko The unverse in the energetic sense is indeed dwindling. And it will continue to dwindle as matter is turned into forms of energy and expelled. Light, radiation, heat, all these things are expelled, this is evidence of the universe as we know it having a beggining, note: as we know it.

The funny thing is that most physicists think the universe is expanding as the energy dwindles. The cosmos is just weird that way, I guess.

[Zeppelin DC]

If this eternal being always was then it doesn't have a begining, if it did have a begining then it would need an end.

The universe must have had a begining because the ammount of useable energy is winding down, hence there must have been a point at which it was wound up.

If nothing prexisted the universe then how do you explain it being here. A motion requires a reaction, what was there to react with?

[rcne]

We should then be in a state of a low entropy quantum foam... a long time ago. The clumps of matter we call galaxy clusters never should have formed.

WE and all matter would not exist. Pursuing the God of the gaps is commendable and as good as any other hypothesis.

But the universe is inflationary and matter to energy doesn't violate the law of thermodynamics. Now gravity leakage - thats another subject.

[Zinkovich]

My answer: "I dont know". I would never make assumptions based on a preexisting, purely cultural(at least from what I see) idea when it has not been conclusively supported by the limited data we have.

Also, realize that we have nothing analogous to compare the conditions of how "things"(existence? nonexistence") were before the universe. We know very little about how things might work without a cosmos, and specifically without Gavity, Strong Nuclear, Weak Nuclear, and Electormagnetic forces.

[Zeppelin DC]

rcne -
Are you saying there was external matter outside the universe.
Where'd it come from? What formed it?
It seams nigh impossible that matter spantaniously generated then converted, itself, into energy to form cozmos.

[Kuroko]

I make NO assumptions of things I know NOTHING about.

I will state facts and facts only.
Matter can be converted to energy and vice versa.
Energy lost through forms and/or states of energy and matter in an infinite universe would be lost infinately.
Entropy has one problem in it's effect and that is in how the "energy" of entropy interacts with it's surroundings, for instance entropy in vacuum will not see energy (heat) dispersed over other bodies, thus the conversion of mass, matter and energy will be witnessed. Entropy not being at maximum can therefore be explained.

However! Entropy does tie into my idea, that heat lost in energy/matter/states will be irretrievable in an infinite universe by gravity, thus, the universe has an end, thus to be where it is it had a beggining.