How did the heavier elements come into being?
If I write it out again, it will be the third time that I have done so. Others have briefly touched on the same topic with you as well. We know the process by which heavier elements are synthesized - how the originate, as you like to put it. If you continue to question how they came into being, it's only through willful ignorance.
Evidently you have misread what I said. I KNOW the origin of the elements, you don't. There is no physical process for the origin of something to originate out of nothing. Physical processes also can't originate without an Intelligent Designer.
Your claim that a vastly more complex being than the Universe created the Universe, and all of the elements within it, faces a much bigger logical hurdle than does the factually observed process by which chemical elements are "created" naturally.
You cannot keep making the claim that something arose out of nothing when you have not established nothing as a state of being. There is no evidence, anywhere is cosmology, that Nothing exists.
You're stuck on the same Metaphysical roadblock that hindered philosophers for hundreds of years before you. So I understand your personal confusion. But it's a roadblock that was cleared, similarly a few hundred years ago.
If you would put as much time into research and study as you put into being ostensibly obtuse, you could start making progress.
You keep trying to change the subject. The subject I am trying to discuss is origins. How did matter originate? How did it come into existence?
How did the original mass that became the Universe get there?
I don't know.
Where was "there"?
I don't know.
The Universe is expanding. What is it expanding into?
I don't know.
Is our Universe the only one? If there are multiples, doe they all have the same rules? If the moon was made of cheese, would you eat it?
I don't know.
I don't know.
Yes.
Again, the more complex versions of matter, namely the heavier elements and their subsequent interactions with one another, we know. We know their origin. We know their interactions. We know almost everything about them.
The
only thing required for the Universe to exist as you see it today is a huge helping of Hydrogen and Helium atoms, and perhaps a touch of Lithium, which were themselves synthesized during the collapse and subsequent expansion of the BB.
This is how we came into existence.
Anything... And I mean anything... that occurred prior to the formation of our Universe is an unknowable thing, admittedly. It could just as easily be a continuation of an endless cycle of Universes as it could be a snot goblet on the nose of a Cosmic Pink Unicorn. One of those two things, however, is more likely than the other. Your claim that it absolutely, definitely, positively, without-a-doubt must be the work of an intelligent designer (Named Yahweh) who was part of the ancient Jewish pantheon of gods and through a series of unlikely and impossible events raised a virgin child into adulthood so that he could serve as a blood sacrifice for the sins of a flawed humanity which he created is, like the Cosmic Pink Unicorn, absurd.
That's right but the other side of the coin is just as valid--there is no evidence, anywhere, that something has always existed. What we know currently is that now we have something. What we don't know is how it originate. We also know that there is no evidence to support that matter is eternal. That is the other possible answer, but it can't be proven and you are basing what you believe that matter has always existed.
Teachable moment!
Of the two assumptions that you're using, only one of them makes any sense.
Given that there is
something in existence. And given that something requires something else in order to exist, there is no possible way in which a rational person concludes that Nothing preceded something. You are stuck, I will reiterate, on an ancient Greek philosophical problem called "ex nihilo nihil fit". Nothing comes from nothing. And you, like the great Greek minds, are right! But you're not leaving it behind and moving forward into current scientific understanding. Jump the hurdle, man.
The Law of Conservation of Energy both supports my position and simultaneously discredits yours.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_comes_from_nothing
We are here. Therefore, there was stuff before.
I assume you believe life has not always existed. Then explain how life originated from lifeless elements.
Tell me your definition and requirement of life and I will be happy to.
What is considered to be the earliest form of life is something that blurs the line between abiotic and biotic processes.
OK you are saying matter and energy are eternal. Of course you have not proof to support that guess. You also have no evidence the universe is 13.7 years old. It is absurd to say
xx.7 for something that old. Everyone knows it is only 13.62 years old. Not only that you are unaware of the problems with the current dating methods. The only reliable one is carbon 14, and it is only very reliable for things less then 20,000 years old.
As for the first half of this post, please refer to my previous response.
As for the second half...No sir.
We do not use geologic dating methods to date the Cosmos. That would be fruitless. It's like trying to use a 1900s sports almanac to study the cultural evolution of sport in antiquity. What can the 1937 Yankees tell us about tribal gatherings that used physical competition in lieu all-out warfare? There may be some crossover and similarities, but very little.
Remember a few posts ago when I cited Galaxial Red Shift as one of the evidences for the Big Bang Theory, which you stated had no supporting evidence? That same exact same science (Red Shift) can be used to date local stars, star clusters, distant galaxies, and anything else that emits light out there in the darkness. Think of it like the doppler effect, only in Space.
If you accept that your eyes can see light in the visible spectrum, then you accept the science behind Red Shift.
Using the speed of light as a standard, and a few other complicated concepts in physics, we can not only determine how fast something is moving away from us but how far away it is and how long it must have been in existence. By looking deeper and deeper into the Cosmos, we keep finding older and older things. A fully formed, yet more primitive Galaxy, for example, is a clear indication that not only was its formation occurring during a simpler period of Cosmological history, but we can also determine when it occurred, specifically. Putting all of that information together helps us age the Universe.
The light that you are seeing right now from the Sun is about 8 minutes old. The light (reflection) from the Moon at night is about 3 seconds old. The light from the closest star that you can see is about 4 years old. If it exploded today, we wouldn't know it for another 4 years... See how this works? The light from the most distant objects that we can observe is roughly 13.7 billion years old.... There's a whole other set of data out beyond the visible spectrum, but I'll save that conversation for another set of questions.
The science that allows you to see the words on this page is the same science that we use to calculate the age of the Universe.
The problem is your current knowledge is not complete. You have no evidence matter and energy have always existed. You have no evidence the universe never had nothing. You accept the premises by faint a lone, just I accept what I believe by faith alone. The difference is I admit it, you don't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
http://www.nyu.edu/classes/tuckerman/adv.chem/lectures/lecture_2/node4.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_comes_from_nothing
I conclude that what we know now, does not answer the question of origins. If you insiit matter and energy has alwlays existed,k there is not need to continue thisw discussion, unless you can prove it.
I have, multiple times, using modern observations, scientific law, personal explanations, cited sources, and various other forms of supporting materials. At some point, you're going to have to face the fact that you need to rethink your position here - or, at the very least, educate yourself more on the topics that you find so challenging to your position so that you can discuss them more productively.
