Jump to content
Eternal Lands Official Forums
furio

Big Bang and Black Holes

Recommended Posts

I believe in ID, and I don't believe in the Bigbang.

 

You see, ID makes sense: An intelligent creator decided to make this Universe, not unlike how people make video games or computer simulations.

The Bigbang, on the other hand, lacks something fundamental in physics: Causality.

The Bigbang theory can be described very simply as: "In the beginning, there was nothing; then, it exploded".

Doesn't make much sense to me.

 

There is also no proof for the big bang theory.

Yes, we have the background radiation and the red shift, but to me, that's not enough.

 

Again, ID is not a scientific theory. Bigbang is, and i agree it can be wrong. However it doesnt say "nothing --> explosion", it says "given our knowledge of physics and red shift and backgorund radiation and, and, and... we can come up with a coherent model explaining dynamics of universe until a small delta before time 0"...doesnt say there was nothing, simply (as with black holes) we cant say much. But lack of knowledge or impossibility of it, it is not a proof and not even an argument for existence of a god or an ID.

 

About ID making sense: saying so has the logic and scientific accuracy of this sentence "A giant artichoke decided to make the Universe"...it may have sense for artichokes, calm down their veggie urge for answers, but surely it cant be used in a theory (F->T/F = T).

 

About causality: actually causality is not needed anymore in physics. Modern physics describes systems in term of operators and state change, regardless of what causes the change. The concept of "Force" itself has been discarded long time ago, it is still there for teaching purposes and for the cool speach of Master Yoda. No scientist believe in a "gravity force", they just observe mass and energy behaviours (which in the end are the same too). Why? because these concepts are not needed for a coherent theory, there is no evidence of a gravity force in the universe and no experiment for it. Science is neat, it eliminates even what it has been used for centuries...why add a useless god now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You see, ID makes sense: An intelligent creator decided to make this Universe, not unlike how people make video games or computer simulations.

 

I disagree, ID doesn't make sense. An intelligent creator... wait, where is the intelligent creator from? Self-created?

ID is something to believe in regardless it makes or doesn't make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why people think that science disproves God, although you could argue that it doesn't prove Him either.

 

However, I am a born-again Christian, which I hope explains that I believe in God. I am also a rather good database programmer, even if that does not make me a scientist. My Automatic Control Systems professor is one of the most brilliant scientist I ever met....guess what? He is a Christian too!

 

There is a book Evidence that demands a verdict where a man sets out to prove by science that God does not exist....well, just buy it!

 

What I would like you to consider, however, is that God could not be God if you could figure Him out with your finite mind. Logic is a human concept. Ask anyone who grew up in black Africa, and they will tell you there is a spirit world that defies logic, whether you believe it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand why people think that science disproves God, although you could argue that it doesn't prove Him either.

Who said that? I'm a scientist and i have my beliefs (not religious tho)...just the two CAN'T mix. I'll never try to disprove god with science, simply because it's a foolish thing done with the wrong tool. The other way around, i'll never put god into a scientific argument. It doesnt make the argument stronger...

 

 

What I would like you to consider, however, is that God could not be God if you could figure Him out with your finite mind. Logic is a human concept. Ask anyone who grew up in black Africa, and they will tell you there is a spirit world that defies logic, whether you believe it or not.

 

Logic is not science. Science is a bunch of experiments...try to defy them if you can. Logic is the mathematical tool used to reason on results from experiments. What comes out of an experiment is true, what comes out from a reasoning can be wrong depending on the starting assumptions (and in science assumptions are experiment results, so they are true until better experiments are performed).

 

Logic can be a human concept (not going to try suggesting that logic could be as it is beacuse the world is indeed logical...), but experiments are not. So give me an experiment to prove or disprove god. If you can find one, i'll be your first follower...else leave god where it deserve to be, outside of science....exactly where the african tribe put it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
snip

 

About ID making sense: saying so has the logic and scientific accuracy of this sentence "A giant artichoke decided to make the Universe"...it may have sense for artichokes, calm down their veggie urge for answers, but surely it cant be used in a theory (F->T/F = T).

 

snip

 

 

i think you'll find it was a flying spaghetti monster :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally view science is a tool, the same as logic. I use both. What it comes down to is that we have the facts. People take the facts, interpret them through their worldview/presuppositions/perspective, and come up with their beliefs. In theory, science should just be about finding the facts and should be completely impartial. In theory. I'm not trying to knock off scientists here, but from what I've seen they hate to have their theories refuted, and they will vigorously defend them.

to be honest, I would do the same thing in their place. If a person puts a lot of work into something, its against human nature for them not to defend it. (the recent documentary "Expelled" comes to mind).

A scientist can be defeated by the refusal of his theory, but even if he can be really sad and depressed about, he will never defend his theory with other weapons than logic and facts. Oh, and the refusal must be done with the same weapons or else it is not a refusal, just nonsense.

 

A thing you didn't mention, scientists often take a third route and change their theory to reflect the new facts. After a while, however, they need to adapt things that make their theory less and less likely. An example of this is some of the evolutionary theories that had to be formed to account for the fossil reccord.

I would argue that ID is the logical alternative to Evolution. Either we were caused by random chance, or we were not. Should it not at least be considered?

 

edit: I wanted to clarify: When I refered to Evolution in my post, I meant Macro Evolution (bang to mud to man). Micro-evolution (species getting more and more specific) seems to be very accurate with what we know about genetics.

 

First: origin of life and evolution are two different fields. If you accept micro evolution you have to accept macro evolution, they are aspects of the same process from a differently sized point of view.

Not true. They are similar in name only. To put it in a nutshell, macro evolution requires that new information be added to a creatures genetic code so that it can evolve and become more advanced we have no evidence for this and it falls outside the laws of genetics. Micro evolution on the other hand is the idea that genetic information is lost as species get more and more specific. This fits with the laws of genetics, and we can see it happening (animal breeders for example).

 

Second: random chance or not? let's put aside for a moment the random chance (which is indeed not only the reason of why life exists, but also of why it is still existing) and consider the "not". Why you have to introduce an ID? It is needed (to non scientists) to explain how it is possible for organic molecules to form a system that can reproduce itself (and this need is not logical at all). Well, studying such molecules (instead of stop thinking about them thanks to the ID), you find that their structure is perfectly shaped for such performances and that they can be created step by step from inorganic molecules. To be clearer, DNA is as such not for the magic hand of an ID willing to spread life on earth, but *simply* because that structure is able to resist and exploit the random events (chance, noise, variation as you wish) that inevitably happen.

You are assuming that scientists hold your point of view. The truth is, ID is being suggested by scientists as well. You're also supposing that ID wants us to stop thinking about the molecules, which is false. Also, how is it illogical to require an explanation for how a process started itself?

 

About ID making sense: saying so has the logic and scientific accuracy of this sentence "A giant artichoke decided to make the Universe"...it may have sense for artichokes, calm down their veggie urge for answers, but surely it cant be used in a theory (F->T/F = T).

This is a straw man. We have only one possibility being considered and taught currently, and that is that there was no designer (often as fact, despite the lack of hard evidence). If we explore the possibillity that there was no designer, does it not make sense that we explore the possibility that there was? It is the logical alternative.

 

Note that neither theory can really be proven because we can't observe it happening today. Instead, we tend to try and outlaw the other possibilities, which leaves us with the most likely solution.

 

You see, ID makes sense: An intelligent creator decided to make this Universe, not unlike how people make video games or computer simulations.

 

I disagree, ID doesn't make sense. An intelligent creator... wait, where is the intelligent creator from? Self-created?

ID is something to believe in regardless it makes or doesn't make sense.

There are different explanations. The one that I am most familiar with is the Christian "theory", which says that God has always existed. The key difference between this and a non-ID "theory" is that this theory allows for the supernatural (influence from outside the natural laws). This allows matter and energy to be created from nothing, if you will, and the universe to have a starting point.

 

If you outlaw the supernatural (and yes, science by definition cannot measure this, so here is where logic comes in). Science says that within natural laws matter and energy can change from one to the other, but they don't come out of nothing. Therefore, you must have had matter and/or energy to create the big bang, and that matter/energy must have come from other matter/energy. This goes on forever. Its a sort of paradox in the end.

Edited by Dunian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A thing you didn't mention, scientists often take a third route and change their theory to reflect the new facts. After a while, however, they need to adapt things that make their theory less and less likely. An example of this is some of the evolutionary theories that had to be formed to account for the fossil reccord.

Yes, what is not scientific in this beahviour? new experiments can weakean a theory, it gets adapted in weak points, until one day a better experiment gives insights...relativity has been found this way. AS i said, want ID in science? Give an experiment for it.

 

Not true. They are similar in name only. To put it in a nutshell, macro evolution requires that new information be added to a creatures genetic code so that it can evolve and become more advanced we have no evidence for this and it falls outside the laws of genetics. Micro evolution on the other hand is the idea that genetic information is lost as species get more and more specific. This fits with the laws of genetics, and we can see it happening (animal breeders for example).

Sorry, i disagree. Microevolution is the theory of natural selection applied to genetics. It studies how allele frequencies change over time (mutations and other mechanisms). Macroevolution is the study at popolation level of the same thing nd studies the variation of features instead of genes. This means a macroevulutionist studies how and when the spine has appeared, the mass of brains and so on...which are without doubt a product of the genome which varies in microevolution.

Nothing "falls outside laws of genetics", simply macroevolution is more difficult to explain since it has less data to speculate on.

 

 

You are assuming that scientists hold your point of view. The truth is, ID is being suggested by scientists as well. You're also supposing that ID wants us to stop thinking about the molecules, which is false. Also, how is it illogical to require an explanation for how a process started itself?

ID can be a scientist beliefs...never heard one using it as an argument for explanation though, since it is not scientific. That's all. It's not logical or illogical requiring an explanation, it's just human (again, not scientific).

 

 

About ID making sense: saying so has the logic and scientific accuracy of this sentence "A giant artichoke decided to make the Universe"...it may have sense for artichokes, calm down their veggie urge for answers, but surely it cant be used in a theory (F->T/F = T).

This is a straw man. We have only one possibility being considered and taught currently, and that is that there was no designer (often as fact, despite the lack of hard evidence). If we explore the possibillity that there was no designer, does it not make sense that we explore the possibility that there was? It is the logical alternative.

 

Note that neither theory can really be proven because we can't observe it happening today. Instead, we tend to try and outlaw the other possibilities, which leaves us with the most likely solution.

 

I dont know what school you was in, my school didnt teach me nothing about ID or not ID. Those arguments are relegated out of science and are not taught by the science teacher anywhere. You are free to explore every possibility buit be warned that Logic is not Science. Aristotele was logical, still he said lot of bullshit. All the Medieval metaphysics is completely logical, still more bullshit if possible. My sentece is the same as radu's with a different subject. I have no experiment for a giant artichoke (but wait, maybe genetics...let me try...kidding :D ), you have no experiment for ID. Logically both out of science.

 

Now, science uses things like my giant artichoke in theories to explain temporary unknown facts, to fill the hole left by an unknown mechanism (i.e. the gravity force i told about) but never adds something not needed in explanations. ID is not needed, it doesnt add knowledge at all. And as giant artichokes cant be accepted until a decisive experiment.

 

You see, ID makes sense: An intelligent creator decided to make this Universe, not unlike how people make video games or computer simulations.

 

I disagree, ID doesn't make sense. An intelligent creator... wait, where is the intelligent creator from? Self-created?

ID is something to believe in regardless it makes or doesn't make sense.

There are different explanations. The one that I am most familiar with is the Christian "theory", which says that God has always existed. The key difference between this and a non-ID "theory" is that this theory allows for the supernatural (influence from outside the natural laws). This allows matter and energy to be created from nothing, if you will, and the universe to have a starting point.

I should say "OMG!", but it is not the case. You are aware that your claims are really...well..uncorrect? what is the difference in saying a giant artichoke or an ID "influences from outside the natural laws"? what outside? what supernatural? pls experiments for these, else out of science. Matter and energy created from nothing thanks to the wonderful theory of ID? so we found how to do it? nice! let's all be rich...k, end of sarcasm. Again Logic is not Science. What makes sense is not necessarily the right explanation (think of quantum mechanics...does it makes any sense?!? but it predicts things and can be used practically)

 

If you outlaw the supernatural (and yes, science by definition cannot measure this, so here is where logic comes in). Science says that within natural laws matter and energy can change from one to the other, but they don't come out of nothing. Therefore, you must have had matter and/or energy to create the big bang, and that matter/energy must have come from other matter/energy. This goes on forever. Its a sort of paradox in the end.

 

No paradoxes at all, science studies what can be measured, it is not interested where matter/energy come from unless there is an observable source. Again, free to believe in a ID that comes from the artichoke land and creates a big bang or whatever, just take it out of science.

 

In the end, you are mixing scientific claims with metaphysical ones. Again Logic is not Science, implications with "must" are not strong, and bold doesnt make them stronger.

 

 

Note:

I dont want to sound sarcastic or rude, i'm enjoying this discussion and your points are clear stated. I dont want even to put myself higher than you, but as a scientist i strive for accuracy, so I use a bit of ardor in making things clear (expecially when putting things inside science when they doesnt belong). :brooding:

 

EDIT:

messed up with quotes...

Edited by Fedora

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[You are assuming that scientists hold your point of view. The truth is, ID is being suggested by scientists as well. You're also supposing that ID wants us to stop thinking about the molecules, which is false. Also, how is it illogical to require an explanation for how a process started itself?

 

i think names and refrences to support this claim are not to much to ask for.

 

 

and people have been exploring the idea of an intelligent designer, but once you explored and found no evidence you put the idea to bed, not decide to believe it anyway.

 

and to all the people who say "there is no explanation for why it all started" there are theories currently coming together and proofs being drawn up and when the LHC is turned on in Geneva later this year a lot of this conjecture may hve solid basis. but you know what i think, if a really good theory for why it all started is produced and it fits in perfectly all the way down to inarguable facts like if you drop something it will fall to the floor, then religous people still won't beleive it. so dont use that argument because it really doesn't matter if scientists understand it or not, you will stll argue against it.

Edited by anima

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Logic can be a human concept (not going to try suggesting that logic could be as it is beacuse the world is indeed logical...), but experiments are not. So give me an experiment to prove or disprove god. If you can find one, i'll be your first follower.
When I said that there is a realm that defies logic, I took it for granted that it would be understood that it also defies science. So, I'm afraid I cannot provide an experiment to prove God. and like I said, while we Africans may not be the best scientists, but we certainly are a very religious race that seems to have more trouble understanding science that it does the supernatural! As a result, I have trouble understanding this comment:-
...else leave god where it deserve to be, outside of science....exactly where the african tribe put it.
And oh, Africa is a continent, not a tribe!

 

One more thing I do have to take up with you is this; It makes a huge difference when you write God correctly, i.e., with a capital G. It may sound pedantic, but god and God mean different things to a lot of people. I may not have the correct vocabulary to answer all your questions, but as one wise man said, "One thing is certain: the man with the experience is never at the mercy of the man with the argument!"

 

Interesting. Considering that light travels at 186,282.397 miles per second, you better have the Enterprise at hand if you're trying to out run that baby!

 

Hehe, anyways...I personally believe that Black Holes are a type of "Worm Hole" that we cannot fully understand yet. I believe that the reason why light cannot even escape it is because when light travels into it, it's already on the other side of the worm hole.

As a Stargate SG1 fan, this actually makes sense to me :)

 

Its true very true big bang is TRUE! black holes are real! i have a big bang and it loves black holes.Me and my friends name Jesus,Mohammad,Israel went to club Hellven and we got laid! :) met two girls name sohpia and mary they were virgins! :angry: BTW I have a dog name trinity hes great,he can do tricks like cure diseases.
This has to be the sickest, most retarded post I have ever read anywhere. :P Edited by EaglePrince

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

personally i believe in the big bang, or something like that. I'm not actually sure i think its something to do with science but were are just not advanced enough and don't have the technology yet to properly find out what happened

 

same with black holes lol the whoal ider of being made by a creator.. it just doesn't make seance to me

Edited by thelethalmoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Logic can be a human concept (not going to try suggesting that logic could be as it is beacuse the world is indeed logical...), but experiments are not. So give me an experiment to prove or disprove god. If you can find one, i'll be your first follower.
When I said that there is a realm that defies logic, I took it for granted that it would be understood that it also defies science. So, I'm afraid I cannot provide an experiment to prove God. and like I said, while we Africans may not be the best scientists, but we certainly are a very religious race that seems to have more trouble understanding science that it does the supernatural! As a result, I have trouble understanding this comment:-
...else leave god where it deserve to be, outside of science....exactly where the african tribe put it.
And oh, Africa is a continent, not a tribe!

 

Thank you for bringing up this topic. I totally agree with you. I'm not a machine, i have feelings, i have, imo, a deep and complex spirituality (built on top of my scientific knowledge), i'm training to be a doctor and i often experience a sort of emphaty which helps me a lot in helping my patients. I also experienced moments in my life (often on drugs, but not always) where i can get in touch with "something perfect", or "see the whole picture"...i can continue with lots of examples.

 

Moreover i think i have something less than the Africans you are talking about, something really precious that western civilization has lost. And far from me to be unrespectful, i simply quoted what you said, namely that your experience of god defies logic and science SO it is outside of it...exactly as my emphaty. To be more precise, i'm not saying tha science cant understand that emphaty, it can by scanning my brain and measuring my neurotransmitters and, and, and...however science cant say nothing about what that mental state is for me, what is the feeling of experiencing it. And for the meaning of it...again, out of science.

 

There are at least two kinds of truth, the one of science and the one of the consciousness (or by extension of a bunch of conscious beings having similar experiences). The first can be discussed, proved, reproduced...the second cant. And most important, the two doesnt overlap so arguments of the first cant be used in the second and viceversa. Dont you find that our duty should be to use both these truths the right way? Imo, a society of spiritual people with a rigorous scientific culture is not only possible, but desiderable.

 

 

One more thing I do have to take up with you is this; It makes a huge difference when you write God correctly, i.e., with a capital G. It may sound pedantic, but god and God mean different things to a lot of people. I may not have the correct vocabulary to answer all your questions, but as one wise man said, "One thing is certain: the man with the experience is never at the mercy of the man with the argument!"

I use god instead of God because afaik God is meant to be the one of the monotheistic religions, while I mean the idea of god, which being an idea doesnt require capitalisation.

 

Another thing is certain: having both the experience and the argument never puts you at the mercy of anyone :o

 

EDIT: typos

Edited by Fedora

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a few questions for all you pro-bangers.

  • What are the chances of an explosion in space leaving behind an orderly galaxy? Even if that were possible, what are the chances of an explosion producing life, because from the evidence of what happens around here, explosions can only kill, not create life.
  • Why are the planets not random shapes? I would have expected plantets dispersed in the same rough direction to have similar compositions. Why is this not so?
  • To you evolutionists...why have animals not evolved into more advanced versions? Surely by now, lions should have learnt that fried gazelle tastes better than raw meat!

The truth is that we don't know as much as we think we do, and IMO, these theories are man's attempt to ignore God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a few questions for all you pro-bangers.

  • What are the chances of an explosion in space leaving behind an orderly galaxy? Even if that were possible, what are the chances of an explosion producing life, because from the evidence of what happens around here, explosions can only kill, not create life.
  • Why are the planets not random shapes? I would have expected plantets dispersed in the same rough direction to have similar compositions. Why is this not so?
  • To you evolutionists...why have animals not evolved into more advanced versions? Surely by now, lions should have learnt that fried gazelle tastes better than raw meat!

The truth is that we don't know as much as we think we do, and IMO, these theories are man's attempt to ignore God.

 

lets start at the beggining shall we

 

1. sure the chances of it happening randomly are pretty low, but a lot of cutting edge science these days points towards there being billions of universes not just ours, the chances of galaxies and life forming in at least one are pretty high yes?

 

2. the force of gravity causes the mass of a body to fit into the smallest space possible, this is to do with potentail energy, a sphere has the least potential energy and since all things tend to a state of lowest potential energy it would be pretty weird if any planets weren't spherical, asteroids are all diffrent shapes because the force of gravity is much lower in these situations because asteroids have much lower mass, why didn't god make asteroids spherical aswell? he obviously was a big fan of the shape.

 

not sure what your next question is exactly but if its about outer planets being made of diffrent stuff to the inner planets its potential energy again, rocks have more mass than gas so it should occupy the area nearest the largest source of gravitational force in the system.

 

3. evolution is a slow process, imagine how unlikely the genetic mutations that give an animal an advantage are, we've done well to get as far as we have, plus disasters have been good catalysts for evolution and lions have it pretty good for the last few millions years so they dont evolve so much.

 

science doesn't have all the answers(yet) but it definitely has the ones to such simple questions as these.

 

 

edit:inserted missing words

Edited by anima

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a few questions for all you pro-bangers.

  • What are the chances of an explosion in space leaving behind an orderly galaxy? Even if that were possible, what are the chances of an explosion producing life, because from the evidence of what happens around here, explosions can only kill, not create life.
  • Why are the planets not random shapes? I would have expected plantets dispersed in the same rough direction to have similar compositions. Why is this not so?
  • To you evolutionists...why have animals not evolved into more advanced versions? Surely by now, lions should have learnt that fried gazelle tastes better than raw meat!

The truth is that we don't know as much as we think we do, and IMO, these theories are man's attempt to ignore God.

 

I hate to jump in midway but I have just a few disagreements about these statements. First of all the universe is far from being orderly, and the only reasons galaxies seem orderly is that they have a massive black hole which forces a gravitational pull on the immediate surrounding matter. The life would have come much much later when the planets had cooled, taken their orbits and the carbon and other elements would be able to form and produce the basics for DNA.

 

Planets are sphere shaped because when they were molten lava floating in gravitational equlibrium they form spheres and then harden as they cool. An example would be to throw water in the air, the water combines to form droplets, which would be spherical if you did not take into the account of the friction from the surrounding atmosphere.

 

Evolution also is a relatively new theory that we have just begun in to focus study on. Evolution takes millions of years for random mutations and adaptational effects to change a species. In a million years who says an adaptation of the lion species, with opposable thumbs of course, couldn't light a fire? Here is a pic that shows that we are still learning about what aniamls are able to do. Click Here.

 

As far as black holes, I feel they are real, however not wormholes as science fiction would lead us to believe. My reasoning would be there would need to be an exit point for the wormhole and assuming that every galaxy would have at least one black hole then it makes me wonder where are the exits in our galaxy, or can we leave never to return.... I would think of them to be a recycling factory for the universe, matter goes in, gets obliterated and exits in the form of radiation and elements, only to reform later. The big bang theory is a little tougher for me to swallow. If the universe was created with a bang then what was before...I would hardly think it would be an infinite mass of blank space. Regardless everything here is theories and we will probably not see a conclusion in our lifetime. I guess we can only hope and pray...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. sure the chances of it happening randomly are pretty low, but a lot of cutting edge science these days points towards there being billions of universes not just ours, the chances of galaxies and life forming in at least one are pretty high yes?
As a sci-fi fan and ocassional visitor to nasa.org, I accept that there are indeed multiple galaxies. However, I take issue with your claim that life forms. Life does not 'form'. It is reproduced. This means that life cannot come from anything inanimate, even if it is called a bang!
2. the force of gravity causes the mass of a body to fit into the smallest space possible, this is to do with potentail energy, a sphere has the least potential energy and since all things tend to a state of lowest potential energy it would be pretty weird if any planets weren't spherical, asteroids are all diffrent shapes because the force of gravity is much lower in these situations because asteroids have much lower mass, why didn't god make asteroids spherical aswell? he obviously was a big fan of the shape.
Having taken material science and physical chemistry, I agree mostly :o

However, I don't think that asteroids were created as asteriods. I prefer to think of them as debris from collisions between heavenly bodies. For example. a comet could crash into a small planet....

not sure what your next question is exactly but if its about outer planets being made of diffrent stuff to the inner planets its potential energy again, rocks have more mass than gas so it should occupy the area nearest the largest source of gravitational force in the system.
Again, that is quite logical, although I think you meant density rather than mass. What I meant was that I would expect similar geological structure between say, Mercury and Venus, or Mars and Earth.
3. evolution is a slow process, imagine how unlikely the genetic mutations that give an animal an advantage are, we've done well to get as far as we have, plus disasters have been good catalysts for evolution and lions have it pretty good for the last few millions years so they dont evolve so much.
Sorry, but this response failed to impress me :D
science doesn't have all the answers...
I definitely agree with you here!

Edit

Fixed some typos

Edited by EaglePrince

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a sci-fi fan and ocassional visitor to nasa.org, I accept that there are indeed multiple galaxies. However, I take issue with your claim that life forms. Life does not 'form'. It is reproduced. This means that life cannot come from anything inanimate, even if it is called a bang!

 

I'm not a philosopher, but I'm pretty sure that's an inaccurate description of life. Science tells us that there are many, many more planets out there. Each galaxy, roughly, contains millions of star systems (think of our system - Sol). The milkyway has a diameter ~300,000 Ly, think of all the star systems, the hundreds of thousands of planets. Even if <1/3 of them are habitable, the chances of life being born on other worlds is astronomically high. Odds are, those life forms will not be humanoid. So you can't really say life is "reproduced", as "life" would be different on every planet.

 

Having taken material science and physical chemistry, I agree mostly :)

However, I don't think that asteroids were created as asteriods. I prefer to think of them as debris from collisions between heavenly bodies. For example. a comet could crash into a small planet....

 

Isn't that a bit unlikely? The simplest solution is usually the correct one, after all. To prove that speculation, you'd first need to prove the existence of heavenly bodies :o

 

Again, that is quite logical, although I think you meant density rather than mass. What I meant was that I would expect similar geological structure between say, Mercury and Venus, or Mars and Earth.

 

I'm too young to study astrophysics, I wouldn't know how to comment here.

 

Sorry, but this response failed to impress me :)

 

Um, that's not an argument. It doesn't even make sense.

 

I definitely agree with you there!

 

Belief and philosophy only take you so far. Science defines the fundamental laws. Or, as I like to call them, Aphistolas' Rules to the Universe :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3. evolution is a slow process, imagine how unlikely the genetic mutations that give an animal an advantage are, we've done well to get as far as we have, plus disasters have been good catalysts for evolution and lions have it pretty good for the last few millions years so they dont evolve so much.
Sorry, but this response failed to impress me :)

 

Honestly, so far the discussion was really interesting, but... such a statement. What would be your reaction if somebody says:

"Sorry, but your god failed to impress me"

It's firstly rude, secondly express utter lack of respect, thirdly, what kind of argument is it?

 

Not going to comment other issues, Fedora will do it much better than myself (lacking English words here:/).

Edited by Vanyel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honestly, so far the discussion was really interesting, but... such a statement. What would be your reaction if somebody says:

"Sorry, but your god failed to impress me"

It's firstly rude, secondly express utter lack of respect, thirdly, what kind of argument is it?

@Vanyel.

I do not have a god, and if you think I was being rude, well....that's rather unfortunate. I'm sorry, but I don't see how not being impressed is 'utter lack of respect' :)

 

However, I hope I have convinced Fedora and anima that my responses to their posts were an indication that I found their viewpoints interesting. In fact I clearly indicated that I mostly agreed with them.

 

Perhaps I should have said 'convince' rather than 'impress', and I'm sorry if anyone - and anima, in particular - was offended. However, I suppose that some might still be offended if I said I wasn't convinced! If you take my original comment in context, and observe my use of punctuation and smilies, you might notice that my reference to lions cooking, as well as my response to anima's comment, were supposed to have an element of humour,. Obviously, that worked rather well.

In any case, my point was simply that I expected animals to have evolved beyond their current levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

life reproducing is the likely origin of a being, however surely you can accept that living beings are made of simple atoms and molecles yes?

 

well there must be a probability of all these atoms and molecules randomly combining in the right way, and over so many trillions of planets and billions of years it is quite likely to happen, especially when you are only talking of a single celled organism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
life reproducing is the likely origin of a being, however surely you can accept that living beings are made of simple atoms and molecles yes?

 

well there must be a probability of all these atoms and molecules randomly combining in the right way, and over so many trillions of planets and billions of years it is quite likely to happen, especially when you are only talking of a single celled organism.

I agree that all matter is made up of atoms. However, life is not matter.

 

Let us ask ourselves this: what has changed in a man immediately before and after death? Is this advanced human race so backward that we have yet to create a single living cell? For those that my argue for cloning, I am of the opinion - until I am shown to be in error - that this is merely reproducing or mutating cells obtained from already living tissue.

 

I believe that we will never understand our existence if we continue to assume that nothing 'exists' apart from matter and energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
life reproducing is the likely origin of a being, however surely you can accept that living beings are made of simple atoms and molecles yes?

 

well there must be a probability of all these atoms and molecules randomly combining in the right way, and over so many trillions of planets and billions of years it is quite likely to happen, especially when you are only talking of a single celled organism.

I agree that all matter is made up of atoms. However, life is not matter.

 

Let us ask ourselves this: what has changed in a man immediately before and after death? Is this advanced human race so backward that we have yet to create a single living cell? For those that my argue for cloning, I am of the opinion - until I am shown to be in error - that this is merely reproducing or mutating cells obtained from already living tissue.

 

I believe that we will never understand our existence if we continue to assume that nothing 'exists' apart from matter and energy.

 

the diffrence between dead and alive is to with electrical activity in the brain, so the answer to your question is probably the ceasing of electrical activity between the neurons in the brain.

 

do you really belive that if you took and amoeba and studied the position of every atom and molecule with in it and then assembled similar atoms and molecules in exactly the same way, it would not start to respire and reproduce? this is a very strange thought indeed to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
life reproducing is the likely origin of a being, however surely you can accept that living beings are made of simple atoms and molecles yes?

 

well there must be a probability of all these atoms and molecules randomly combining in the right way, and over so many trillions of planets and billions of years it is quite likely to happen, especially when you are only talking of a single celled organism.

I agree that all matter is made up of atoms. However, life is not matter.

Life is a property of a system able to reproduce itself (namely, transmit the information to build similar systems). Every part of a life being is aimed to that goal. Also a life system has a local decrease of entropy at the cost of an increase of the global entropy. This means, i need energy to keep my structures functioning and not decomposing.

 

How do you claim, in science pls, that life is not matter and energy? The lack of knowledge to describe in detail such systems is not an argument against them being made of matter and energy only. Moreover life is in no way incompatible with physics.

You ever wondered why we die? Why every life being have a different life span? Information cant be stored in a system for long time because it gets degraded by the increasing entropy. Once information and hence structure is ruined not much can be done apart throwing the system away. And that is also why life needs to reproduce itself, to refresh that information. In the reproduction process however, always due to entropy, inevitable variations are included giving birth to different beings with different capabilities and chances of reproduction...

 

Dont you find all of this extremely elegant, beautiful? (and yet, terrible in many senses). Dont you see the that matter and energy have the wondrous ability to organize themselves in such complex systems and over the time give birth to our consciousness (i should say my, but let's assume all of you have one, even if i dont have an experiment to prove it)? I personally find all of this way more impressive than every god a man can think about, even just for the ability i have to study and measure it. Not to mention the fact that from such knowledge you can derive (out of science) a moral and an ethic which have no comparison with any religion...but that's another long story.

 

Matter and energy interact, their interactions are the basics of life systems. Claiming life is something more is the same of seeing a ball rolling down a cliff and assuming that the rolling is something more than matter and energy because at first it seems a different thing. First try to explain the rolling in terms of physics, if you can nothing else is needed.

 

Let us ask ourselves this: what has changed in a man immediately before and after death? Is this advanced human race so backward that we have yet to create a single living cell? For those that my argue for cloning, I am of the opinion - until I am shown to be in error - that this is merely reproducing or mutating cells obtained from already living tissue.

 

I believe that we will never understand our existence if we continue to assume that nothing 'exists' apart from matter and energy.

What has changed? At least one fundamental thing: the electric properties of cells, hence no brain functioning (so no consciousness), hence no heartbeat, hence no electrochemical gradient between cell walls, hence decomposition, loss of information and the entropy wins.

 

We can create something similar to a cell, membranes of lipids with very primitive enzymes in the inside, starting from inorganic molecules and electricity...most likely as has happened ages ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the first post only to make my own honest reply...

 

I believe in me, and accept it. I believe what I see. (Knowing)

I don't believe in anything that stupid, scared human monkeys have come up with. All *ist's for ex. Religions.. w/e.

 

I think black holes are insane gravity, so if you get close it pulls you in at such extreme speed that your whole body (body for example lol) wont get pulled at the same time. Therefore you dissolve - but dissapear? Nah, I think it gets compressed at some insanely dense level... the black hole that is. Extreme measures :P

 

"Thinking" is entertaining, but crap actually. *teasing for replies* ;)

 

<3

Tvinn

 

*EDIT: typo

Edited by Tvinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Read the first post only to make my own honest reply...

 

I believe in me, and accept it. I believe what I see. (Knowing)

I don't believe in anything that stupid, scared human monkeys have come up with. All *ist's for ex. Religions.. w/e.

 

I think black holes are insane gravity, so if you get close it pulls you in at such extreme speed that your whole body (body for example lol) wont get pulled at the same time. Therefore you dissolve - but dissapear? Nah, I think it gets compressed. Extreme measures :whistle:

 

"Thinking" is entertaining, but crap actually. *teasing for replies* :D

 

<3

Tvinn

 

good approach to the world :icon13:

 

when you are near a black hole you get stretched not compressed, which sounds counter intuitive but is a result of basic newtonian equations that say gravity is inversley proportional to the square of the distance between the masses, so your feet get pulled a lot more than your head.

 

nothing ever reaches the singularity in the time frame of the singularity and so you would never enter the black hole since it would take forever to reach the singularity, even though a person could watch something fall into a black hole. there is no time in a black hole if a force can stop light then all of relativity breaks down and lengths of time always come out to inifinty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religion vs Science.. mutually exclusive and perpetually at each other's throats...

 

To be quite frank, I find the whole matter to be terrifyingly silly.

 

Let me elucidate for a moment.

 

1. Science cannot prove or disprove "God". Science deals with the observable and quantifiable.. "God", by any measure, is rather in the "infinite" and "transcendent" sort of aspect, and thus falls outside of being "observable" and "quantifiable". This being the case, the existence, or lack thereof, of any deity figure falls outside the purview of "Science".

 

2. Religion deals wholly with the subjective; the personal beliefs and experiences of individuals relating to the notion of a transcendent "Deity". It has sociopolitical, economic, and historical concerns as well, but in no way, shape, or form, does it engage, as a core matter of its existence, with the notion of a systematic, organized, repeatable, measurable analysis of natural phenomena for the purposes of increasing the overall level of human knowledge. Therefore, Science, (being such a systematic, organized, repeatable, measurable analysis of natural phenomena for the purposes of increasing the overall level of human knowledge) falls outside the purview of Religion.

 

Asking one about the other is akin to asking the guy with the homemade Star Trek uniform, Spock Ears, an encyclopedic knowledge of every episode of the original, classic series, and nocturnal emissions relating to "fantasies about Nurse Chapel" about the "best ways to meet and impress women." Sure, there is a remote chance that you might learn something useful on the subject, but the odds are highly against you.

 

(Note. No, this isn't a specific bashing of Trekkies. It's an attempt to bring clarity by humor. Even you most ardent Star Trek Fans know at least *one* guy among your number who's so socially awkward it's embarrassing to be around him outside of a convention :hug: )

 

The problem as I see it isn't a matter of "which one is right".. because frankly, they're both involved in completely different arenas. Religion exists to cater to the spiritual needs of man. Science exists to derive hard facts about the Universe. The problem is that a great many "believers" in *both* sides are so insecure of themselves that they wind up *insisting* that their particular side is the "be all, end all, of Truth".

 

Ask a Priest about the correct frequencies needed to produce a standing columnar wave in electromagnetics.. You will *not* get a useful answer from the body of knowledge that his vocation employs. Ask an astrophysicist whether the soul, being made manifest by Divinity, inherently obtains Divine characteristics to its nature or if it rather requires a separate dispensation of those characteristics, and you will *not* get a useful answer from the body of knowledge that his vocation employs.

 

Obviously neither side can lay claim to being "absolute" in terms of knowledge.. Science by its very nature is constantly reinventing itself (or should be, anyway) through the accumulation of new learning and new experimentation. Religion even admits its imperfect knowledge by the oft-turned phrase "The Lord works in mysterious ways."

 

To say "I do not know" is perhaps one of the most courageous things a human can say. It acknowledges that we are imperfect, limited, and vulnerable, as we all know we are. In the saying, it means we have to look our own weakness squarely in the eye, and it takes a certain security of self to do so. On the other hand, any fool can loudly proclaim that "This is the only, absolute truth".. and allow themselves to be completely convinced by their own bravado. It's a convenient way for many to avoid having to look at the things they fear within themselves.

 

That being said, Yes, I think there was a "Big Bang". Science pretty well has that one nailed down. I leave it to the Scientists to do that sort of analysis and measurement. What *caused* this "Big Bang?" I don't know. To me, the idea of a God is not implausible. In a very subjective, personal way, I have a strong belief in Divinity, and a deep sense of something out there greater than I am which I am connected to. It doesn't mean I'm Agnostic, however. I have some strong ideas about what that Divinity is.. but I'm not so arrogant to assume that I, as a flawed, finite human have somehow "cornered the market" on an infinite, transcendent being such as any "God" must be. Faith is what you keep in your heart.

 

In terms of Intelligent Design.... Frankly, while I personally believe that there is/was a "Designer"... under no circumstances do I support that rubbish being taught as "Science". The entire effort is *nothing* more than an attempt by conservative judeo-christians to insert their *theology* into secular compulsory education for the purposes of propagandizing children, potentially against their will. Militant Religiosity has no place in such environs.

 

As far as Black Holes go... *shrugs* I don't know. They're big, they have a lot of gravity, and beyond that, they're billions upon billions of miles away from me, so they don't exactly qualify as a pressing problem. If pressed to offer a guess, I'd say they're a sort of "dimensional locus", where the accumulation of density has hit such a point as to create a re-virtualization of particles into the active vacuum. This theory precludes the need for "wormholes" or "white holes", or potentially even other universes, as mass/energy exchanges constantly cycle between observable and virtual states. But that's just a guess, and there's probably an even cooler truth to the whole bit. *shrugs*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×