Earth and it's Orgins - who answers best?

[alexGERMAN]

Quote by: Jagged For all we know science could be wayy off, but i do agree with the method of using whatever little evidence we can muster to create theories. Its interesting, but definitely far from absolute im just talking about the debate of the origins here, folks, not science on the whole

True science is very far from absolute at this stage, and progress is slow, but if we didnt have science, we would be making no progress at all. Better to eventually learn than not learn at all. So what if science makes a few glarring errors.

[samsara15]

Noah must have had a real problem getting a pair of Plesiosaurs and Ichtythosaurs on board. He was really quite a resourceful fellow!

[Cephus]

Quote by: Jagged For all we know science could be wayy off, but i do agree with the method of using whatever little evidence we can muster to create theories. Its interesting, but definitely far from absolute

No such thing as absolutes, sorry. Only a fool looks for perfection. We go with what we find and what we see and if we're wrong, we correct that with later observations. It's unfortunate that some people simply cannot handle not having the whole picture right this second, but that's reality.

[Kuldeep]

Any specific answer to the question posed in OP from your that present reality, Cephus ???

Any additionsfrom you to BB or what I said in my post #14 of this thread!!!

[Cephus]

Quote by: Kuldeep Any specific answer to the question posed in OP from your that present reality, Cephus ???

The OP didn't ask any specific questions, it was a poll.

[Technosoul]

The Big Bang theory as a mathematical concept is correct, and the invention of the Atom Bomb is supportive evidence.

However the Big Bang theory discribes a re-organization of pre-exisisting substances or causes, such as gas and/or gravity. You cannot explode nothing with nothing and get something. And mathematics (physics) would depend on some things upon which to apoint the symbols used to do the math.

And what about the micro life, viggie life, animal and human life?

[Kuldeep]

@ Cephus

The question is what is your view about origin of earth? Opener of post wants to know who answers the best!

[Kuldeep]

@Technosoul

Scientists challenge BB based on increasing trend of acceleration in the speed with which the universe expands over last few million of years!. # 14 may be reffered!

And what about the micro life, viggie life, animal and human life?

This need a different thread to discuss!

[Cephus]

Quote by: Kuldeep @ Cephus The question is what is your view about origin of earth? Opener of post wants to know who answers the best!

Which I answered in my first post. Science is the only one that even has an answer. Religion is just a bunch of made up crap designed to make people feel better about themselves.

[gallo]

Quote by: Technosoul The Big Bang theory as a mathematical concept is correct,

How would you know. In previous discussions that tended towards math you have admited that you can't do it.

Quote by: Technosoul and the invention of the Atom Bomb is supportive evidence.

Nope.

Quote by: Technosoul However the Big Bang theory discribes a re-organization of pre-exisisting substances or causes, such as gas and/or gravity.

Nope. There was no "substance" to reorganize and all causes are unknown. Cosmologists refer to the origin of the universe as a pre-geometry of space time whose laws and physics are unknown. Physics cannot describe anything about the universe or the big bang within one Planck time (5.4 × 10E−44 s) after the initial expansion. Even after that, all of the forces were still unified until about 10E-34 s when the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces began to separate. At this time the universe was a plasma of quarks, electrons, and other particles. At about 10E-10 s Particles actually had substance when energy levels were low enough to allow quarks to form protons and neutrons.

Quote by: Technosoul You cannot explode nothing with nothing and get something.

Except for two facts. As mentioned the physics at the time of the big bang is unknown (so how do you know), and the big bang is not an explosion but an expansion of space/time.

Oh, yeah. You might look into zero point energy which refers to the ground state energy of the vacuum of empty space. A consequence of zero point energy is the Casimir effect in which particles have been observed to arise from nothing.

Quote by: Technosoul And mathematics (physics) would depend on some things upon which to apoint the symbols used to do the math.

What? Did that make sense to you?

Quote by: Technosoul And what about the micro life, viggie life, animal and human life?

What's a viggie? Besides the question was about the origin of the earth.

Likely it formed in a solar nebula or planetary nebula around the sun. The remnants of such nebula have been observed around relatively new stars. Some of the matter in that nebula came together by gravity to form planets. The source of all that matter was a cloud of mostly hydrogen and helium. Most of the elements heavier than those are the product of super novas, huge stars that have enough gravity to continue fusion until iron is formed. When those stars go super nova, the outer layers are blown off into space. The shock wave generates enough energy to create elements heavier than iron.

[Zeebadee]

I fail to see the necessity of bringing religion into every discussion of the universe and it's origins. Why does the concept that the universe and life as we know it was created by some means that we don't yet understand require that creation to be a god or some mystical supernatural force? It could just as easily be that some entity started life on earth when they dumped their garbage here on their way to someplace really interesting. My idea of ID is simply that life here was created by some means we don't yet have an understanding of. It's simply the beginnings of an hypothesis that is awaiting the development of the necessary processes and procedures to make some rational, logical, scientific tests.

[Osborn F Enready]

Science, without a doubt for me the best answer and still being refined.

[Kuldeep]

Agreed, science could/would have the best answer but what and when???

[Fonceai]

Exactly, Kuldeep.

I had a quote from Isherwood in my signature that science admitted when it didn't have answers.

That some point to science and say that the lack of the answer is proof of a negative is just... well f**ktarded.

My choice is "science" because I believe one day science will render the supernatural to be natural, and somehow be able to really find God.

[Right of Center]

Quote by: Isherwood People once said man would never fly and no one would ever have a computer in their home. Are you sure you want to be so absolute in your opinion? :)

Yes. No one ever witnessed it, therefore we will never know with 100% accuracy the origins of the earth.

[aebe]

Believers or not believers? And who is crititcal to his or her own thinking?. No one can know all. The matimatician Kurt Gödel proved already mathematically each theory (formalized) is incomplete. And I say a non formalized theory is even more incomplete. It lacks axioms, You can google for that. One answer for mathematics and also exact. Not to escape there.

Science says never it knows all. We see theories always change in history and now there is also a new physical theory for the whole physics. This has beem called the Einstein theory. From quantum physics to astro-physics. One encompassing theory.

So the whole scientific community says: None knows all and with reasons. Beleivers can't give reasons. It's only a believe. They state only. For me people may believe everthing. Only about believes we can't discuss. That is inherent to believes. Not discussible

Believers can you foretell me what weather will it be at 10 April 2007? When some one has all knowledge I am only interested in an answer to that question. And otherwise you can't convince me. And then you can't know all.

[InTheFlesh?]

When will people try to understand science is not trying to disprove God or the ID but just trying to make sense of what they see and observe.

No scientist is sat twindling a pencil flicking through the bible saying "ahh how can i disprove that"

Scientists notice things like the universe expanding, and say what caused that?

Then they come up with ideas and try and find evidence for those ideas, if it doesn't fit then they reject those ideas.

Why do people think Darwin hates Jesus and God, or that scientist have no faith in God? Fear?

God doesn't have to have had anything to do with anything.

I think science makes sense but it depends on what you want to find out.

The origins of the universe? If science says it was the BB that doesn't disprove God it just explains how the universe started, why is that hard for religions to accept. It's like saying how a car starts.

yeah

[aebe]

Quote by: Kuldeep As regards knowing about the origin of earth, definitely answer from "Religion of Science" would be accepted and welcome! But the point is how much more we have to wait for that. To best of my knowledge, the most accepted theory regarding the formation of this universe and our earth till recent past has been Big Bang. But the finding of postive acceleration in the speed with which our universe is expanding has put a question mark over B B theory. If BB is right then the accleration in the speed of universe expansion ought to be negative or at the most constant, as physic's fundamental laws of motion. I am sure, Science is on to solve this riddle of positive accleration in speed of universe expansion. The only explanation with me for positive accleration is that the interval between BB and present period is so short in comparison to total TIME that we are PRESENTLY in the period of increasing speed created by BB. After many more trillions and trillions of years, the speed of Universe Expansion might start reducing which only would reinstate BB as the base of origin of universe.:eek: :)

I am sorry you aren't up to date. There is a new Einstein theory yielding from the quantum level to astro physics proving Albert Einsten was right and the others were using only statistical ways.

The Big Bang was right but from a black hole that grew too big to keep all in itself. With only an edge. And with many iregularities.

So alas for you. You aren't completely up to date.

[Kuldeep]

@aebe

Never mind dear, and there is no need to be sorry about my insufficient knowledge! I would love to know more about the new Einstein theory from you. But, presently your lesson seems to be incomplete!!! You have provided only results without a reference of any proof or the full text.