18 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by LivingForJesusObviously, none of us was around at the beginning of the Universe. As a result, we can only develop a hypothesis as to how the whole thing rolled out. Fortunately, the Universe continues to unfold about us and we can use empirical evidence to develop and test theories as to the conception of the Universe. The Big Bang is one of these theories and it does seem to be well supported by our observations.
I would just like to know???
Perhaps a better bet is to look for parallels to the start of the Universe in our daily lives. Often observations of a small system can be used to develop an hypothesis as to how a larger system would react. This is frequently done in Research & Development to take a small scale laboratory experiment and move it into production on a large industrial scale. So to can we test our Big Bang hypothesis with a small scale experiment.
Take the Jumbo Beef & Bean Burrito I purchased at 7-11 yesterday evening. I heated this monster burrito up in the microwave and grabbed several heinken Keg Cans for the road. I knew the burrito wasn't a great choice, but, it was as hot as molten lava amd I was starving from driving and working with idiots all day so I wolfed it down with a beer chaser on the way home.
Consider the burrito and beer as the primary building blocks of the universe, an incredibly dense, high temperature primoridal sludge. Also, consider my stomach being the closed system of the empty Universe. I could elaborate upon the various mathematical models used to describe the Big Bang, however, I will focus on the actual physical events resulting from my B&BBBBE(Beef & Bean Burrito Big Bang Experiment). To be consistent with general relativity and with cosmological principle, let us assume that the properties that govern the closed system of my stomach are independant of position, orientation and outside influences.
Let us consider the hours that followed the introduction of the super dense sludge to my stomach to approximate the thousands of years of churning nucleosynthesis reactions that we would expect to accompany the start of the Universe. Needless to say, my hours spent on the toilet certainly seemed like an eternity. At one point I actually had to take off my shirt due to the heat that was building up in my belly, not to mention having to take off my pants to minimize restrictions.
Now we reach an approximation of the initial timepoint in the history of our observed spacetime. The pressure, temperature, density and nuclear interaction reached a point of no return and shot an enormous fireball out of my ass. This exploded into the toilet, our new closed system boundry, and sprayed matter across the newly formed Universe. The flushing of this turd bomb is a good approximation of the ultimate gravitational collapse of the Universe sometime in our future.
I hope my B&BBBB Model of the formation of the Universe has adequately addressed your concerns.
Best Regards,
The Hand
18 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by LivingForJesusDid you ever think that maybe God created the world and our universe with a big bang??? Did you ever think that maybe God made humans threw evalution???
okay but athiesm usally belives in the Big Bang!
A day is a thousand years with the Lord. And a thousand years is a day with the Lord.
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by KingDavid403THAT could conciliate religion and science.
Did you ever think that maybe God created the world and universe with a big bang??? Did you ever think that maybe God made humans threw evalution???
A day is a thousand years with the Lord. And a thousand years is a day with the Lord.
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by serigadoNo it couldn't. Religion specifically requires the belief in the violation of the laws of physics. It specifically requires the existence of the 'supernatural' ie something that cannot be explained by science.
THAT could conciliate religion and science.
Now if Christians will admit that Jesus didn't really die on the cross or that all the people who saw him afterwards were hallucinating or that the claims that he was seen alive after being crucified are untrue then we might be getting closer to reconciliation.....
18 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf I am not mistaken, the Greeks thought that the gods evolved from the earth and then created humans. For me, atheisms simply skips the second part and takes the "god" portion out of the equation.
Athiesm is not a religion. It is merely a label that is often given to people who do not believe in God. To say anything about athiesm as if it was a religion is equivalent to saying something about the group of people who don't like swimming. For example to say "Those who don't like swimming are scared of sharks" is just stupid because the only thing tha eryone really believes) and probably a lot of atheists and members of other religions too.
I think everyone has a God, so to speak. In other words, who is the utlimate authority in our lives? Is it us or is it those who rule over us etc? Then once this authority figure is identified one can then point to this authority figure as being the source of our morals and beliefs. Then once we identify our morals and beliefs one can then identify how one will try and live their respective lives. For me this is what life is all about. How do we live our lives? This is why the "God" concept or lack thereof is so telling and vital.
Edit: The sepant in the garden told Adam and Eve that they would be as "gods" if they usurped the authority of their present God. Then once they forsook the authority of God in their lives their morals and subsequent lifestyles changed with this decision and this is where we have wound up as a result.
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat I was attempting to point out is that life originates from other life sources. This is what is observed in science, hence, anything else is merely speculative and not backed by science.
Nothing could be further from the truth in regards to what we observe in the natural world.
What did you observe in the natural world? Please elaborate.
So really, it is not the model of abiogenesis we are arguing about is it, rather, we are arguing over whether life can originate from nonlife?
Actually I thought that it had been pointed out in another thread that this has actually been done in the lab.[/b]
In terms of scientists creating life, from the links I have been given previously, none of them say that life has been created, rather, they simply state that it is on the "verge" of creating life. Wake me when they as successful.
18 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadReligion in general doesn't believe in the violation of any laws of physics. God is not coherent with physics, but we can get to a point where God is NOT against physics. Physics won't be able to deny it, but we won't have to ear the non-sense from believers against what science built. This is my conciliation.
No it couldn't. Religion specifically requires the belief in the violation of the laws of physics. It specifically requires the existence of the 'supernatural' ie something that cannot be explained by science.
Now if Christians will admit that Jesus didn't really die on the cross or that all the people who saw him afterwards were hallucinating or that th ...[text shortened]... live after being crucified are untrue then we might be getting closer to reconciliation.....
I believe Jesus existed and died in the cross. He had a great message to everyone, and was a great speaker. Some of the listeners got really hot with everything and saw him as prophet. Soon things got out of proportion and the rest is history. Romans didn't like it and did what they did to every troublemaker: sent him to the cross. His message is to remain, Jesus is to be remembered as a martyr of unjust times, but make him a god is a little too much.
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo it doesn't.
No it couldn't. Religion specifically requires the belief in the violation of the laws of physics.
Just because a number of lunatics don't actually understand the laws of physics doesn't mean to say that religion demands it.
There's a lot to unite what science describes and what most religions hint at. Matter from nothing being the most basic.
19 Sep 07
Originally posted by whodeyDid you actually read my post? Why cant you understand that atheism is not a religion or belief and that someone believing abiogenesis took places does not make them an atheist? What is so hard to understand? Why do you repeatedly insist on trying to use the word 'atheist' to mean 'someone who believe abiogenesis took place' when that is simply not the case and has been explained to you many many times?
If I am not mistaken, the Greeks thought that the gods evolved from the earth and then created humans. For me, atheisms simply skips the second part and takes the "god" portion out of the equation.
19 Sep 07
Originally posted by whodeyHa, ha. I can't believe you don't see how stupid that statement is.
What I was attempting to point out is that life originates from other life sources. This is what is observed in science, hence, anything else is merely speculative and not backed by science.
1. Abiogenesis is science.
2. You are trying to claim the fallacy that because something has not been observed or shown via science then it is impossible or disproved by science.
19 Sep 07
Originally posted by whodeyNo I don't. Creationism as far as I am aware is a belief not a scientific hypothesis. If given as a hypothesis it directly contradicts scientific findings and as such would have to be dismissed. Abiogenesis however is still a valid scientific hypothesis with no evidence contradicting it and plenty of evidence supporting it.
You mean like creationism?
I am talking more along the lines of life on mars. Just because science has not yet detected life on mars does not mean it does not exist. You are implying that because science only has evidence of life on earth therefore life cannot exist elsewhere in the universe. That is a fallacy. You are essentially claiming that if we don't know something then it is impossible.
There are no scientific findings that show that life cannot come from non-life.