Originally posted by no1marauder Why bother? In your first paragraph alone, you state the Big Bang was an explosion (wrong), that hydrogen and helium existed almost at the beginning of the expansion of the universe (wrong), that some "experts" say "the cosmic egg" was "millions of kilometers" (wrong), that things "shot out" of the "explosion" (wrong), don't seem to know what ...[text shortened]... es.
I think noone can comprehend theories as complex as the Big Bang without years of mathematical study and a talent for logic to begin with. We don't have to throw insults in the face of those who do not understand.
Suffice it to say. The explanations from modern science is bound to have flaws in it from the perspective of those of us who are not astro-physics. The very concept of science is to observe, form theories and hypothesis and to attempt to disprove them. If we cannot disprove them, we have to accept that they may be right.
It's easy to disprove the concept of God (as the intelligence behind everything) simply because if it takes intelligence to create intelligence, than who created the first intelligence? It's somewhat embarrasing, that we humans have thought for so long that there is an origin intelligence somewhere.
It's not so easy to disprove the concept of intelligence being the result of complex interactions between lesser particles. That, in fact, makes sense, if you sit down and truly think about it.
I think modern science is on the right path, simply because it's not afraid to shatter it's previous conclusions based on new evidence. We can rest assure that whatever the truth is, it will eventually be found if we can accept that we ourselves, those before us and those after us may be wrong and willing to take into account new evidence and observations.
Originally posted by stocken I think noone can comprehend theories as complex as the Big Bang without years of mathematical study and a talent for logic to begin with. We don't have to throw insults in the face of those who do not understand.
Suffice it to say. The explanations from modern science is bound to have flaws in it from the perspective of those of us who are not astro-ph ...[text shortened]... and those after us may be wrong and willing to take into account new evidence and observations.
Good point, I only disagree with your assertion that all intelligence needs a first cause. Only created intelligence needs a first cause. And anyway, your hypothesis doesn't disprove God, it only asserts that He also needed a cause.
Did the mathematical (and intelligent) concept of 1+1=2 need a cause? Why would God?
Originally posted by Halitose Good point, I only disagree with your assertion that all intelligence needs a first cause. Only created intelligence needs a first cause. And anyway, your hypothesis doesn't disprove God, it only asserts that He also needed a cause.
Did the mathematical (and intelligent) concept of 1+1=2 need a cause? Why would God?
Only created intelligence needs a first cause.
Why would God's intelligence not be created? And if Gods intelligence hasn't been created, why do you automatically assume that ours is?
your hypothesis doesn't disprove God, it only asserts that He also needed a cause
You have proven that I'm not a real scientist. I don't know exactly how to prove things scientifically (using nothing but words in an online forum). Only how to logically question things. I'm still learning though.
Did the mathematical (and intelligent) concept of 1+1=2 need a cause? Why would God?
1+1=2 is only an agreement made by us humans. We could just as easily have chosen 2+2=34. The rules of mathematics are formulated by humans for humans, to help us better understand the universe around us (and communicate commercial interests). There was a cause for this. Our need to understand one another.
I do appreciate your obvious intelligence, though. 🙂
Originally posted by Halitose I think dj might be right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
Check under the "creation"(no, not that one) section of the article.
I quote:
"The wavelength distribution of these photons thus are related to their absolute temperature (usually in Kelvin). The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution provides the probability of a photon being a cer ...[text shortened]... er increased, some photons will reach even higher frequencies, such as ultraviolet and X-rays."
No, dj2 is most definitely NOT right about this one. dj2 is trying to imply that a photon has an associated temperature (i.e., that one may speak of 'the temperature of a photon'😉. In doing so, dj2 demonstrates a complete lack of understanding.
Please re-read your own copy and paste job. All it says is that the temperature of the photon emitting body has an effect on the energy distribution of the emitted photons. Anywhere you see the word "temperature" in that paragraph, it refers back to the collection of emitting atoms, not to the emitted photons (otherwise, it is gibberish). Photons have certain energies, frequencies, wavelengths, etc. But to say that a photon has a certain temperature is complete nonsensical gibberish.
Originally posted by LemonJello But to say that a photon has a certain temperature is complete nonsensical gibberish.
It's easy to make these kinds of mistakes when your understanding is based on verbal "translations" of mathematic concepts. The "Big Bang" is a case in point. The mind is only too eager to oblige with images of explosions in response to the auditory stimulus of the graphic symbols BIG BANG. If I were to engage seriously in a debate on these issues, I would most likely make similar mistakes to dj.
No, dj2 is most definitely NOT right about this one. dj2 is trying to imply that a photon has an associated temperature (i.e., that one may speak of 'the temperature of a photon'😉. In doing so, dj2 demonstrates a complete lack of understanding.
This is utter nonsense. Reach my first post which no 1 was refering to.
I quote: "Expansion makes the temperature of the photons to fall..."
I quote: "As the universe expands and cools, the average energy of a photon falls until eventually hydrogen atoms are able to form."
Temperature: "the measure of average kinetic energy"
Originally posted by LemonJello No, dj2 is most definitely NOT right about this one. dj2 is trying to imply that a photon has an associated temperature (i.e., that one may speak of 'the temperature of a photon'😉. In doing so, dj2 demonstrates a complete lack of understanding.
Please re-read your own copy and paste job. All it says is that the temperature [b]of the photon emitt ...[text shortened]... ths, etc. But to say that a photon has a certain temperature is complete nonsensical gibberish.
[/b]I know. That is why I was trying to bring clarity to the whole issue: dj's matter of speaking "temperature" could imply the wavelength of the photon; he is not the only one who uses 'temperature' to imply 'equivalent radiation energy' or wavelength.
Originally posted by Halitose All these observations of yours have a sorting intelligence of some form. Where/what is the intelligence behind the big bang?
You did not read it correctly. I specifically stated that there was no intelligence involved. For example place some realy muddy water in a glass. Leave it for a few hours. Have a look. You will find that it has already started to sort it self out into a more ordered system with froth on top, cleaner water in the middle, and heavier particles such as sand at the bottom. The only force behind this is gravity not intelligence dj2becker stated that all systems become more chaotic and tried to imply that everyone knows this. This is false. Infact in any totaly random system it is a mathematical probability almost a cirtainty that paterns will emerge. (Yes I do have a BSc degree in mathematics).
Pattern and order is not equal to intelligence.
Originally posted by stocken I think noone can comprehend theories as complex as the Big Bang without years of mathematical study and a talent for logic to begin with. We don't have to throw insults in the face of those who do not understand.
Suffice it to say. The explanations from modern science is bound to have flaws in it from the perspective of those of us who are not astro-ph ...[text shortened]... and those after us may be wrong and willing to take into account new evidence and observations.
I think noone can comprehend theories as complex as the Big Bang without years of mathematical study and a talent for logic to begin with.
My first posts are based on the research done by Dr. Philip Stott. He used to be an atheist, but after many years of intense research he has reached the conclusion that there must be a God. He has done a lot of reasearch in applied Mathematics as well.
It's somewhat embarrasing, that we humans have thought for so long that there is an origin intelligence somewhere.
Originally posted by dj2becker I quote: "About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang."
Three sentences later on the same page:
"The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward."
Originally posted by twhitehead You did not read it correctly. I specifically stated that there was no intelligence involved. For example place some realy muddy water in a glass. Leave it for a few hours. Have a look. You will find that it has already started to sort it self out into a more ordered system with froth on top, cleaner water in the middle, and heavier particles such as sand ...[text shortened]... I do have a BSc degree in mathematics).
Pattern and order [b]is not equal to intelligence.[/b]
The simplest known living organism has a thread of DNA containing information equivalent to hundreds of books full of complex information. The probability of producing that by chance is absolutely mind-boggling.
So you have a degree in Maths. Good. Tell me what is the probability of arranging the simple letters of the alphabet by means of random chance without intelligent intervention into a volume of meaningful information? You need some form of inteligent sorting mechanism, right?
How did it all begin?
25 Nov '05 08:51
Back to Top